The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr J Wilson] in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Audit and Accountability Bill: Second Stage

Dr Sean Farren: I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Audit and Accountability Bill (NIA 6/02) be agreed.
Last week, I introduced to the Assembly my draft Budget, which outlined how the Executive intend to spend almost £7 billion of taxpayers’ money. It is a fundamental principle of public life that the Executive are accountable to the Assembly and the people of Northern Ireland for the way in which that money is spent.
The Audit and Accountability Bill deals with the mechanics of public audit. It is a technical Bill, but it is important, as public audit is a key link in the chain of accountability that gives the public confidence that their money is properly spent.
The Bill relates to public audit structures and powers and has two main components. First, it reorganises the structure of public audit in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is a central component in our implementation of the recommendations of Lord Sharman’s report, ‘Holding to Account: The Review of Audit and Accountability for Central Government’, following public consultation in Northern Ireland.
I remind Members of the Bill’s context. The restructuring of public audit was originally included in the legislative programme for the previous session, as the audit reorganisation Bill. In that session, wider debate took place about public audit during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001. The Sharman Report was also published at that time. Accordingly, my predecessor Mark Durkan undertook to withdraw the audit reorganisation Bill and to reintroduce it as the Audit and Accountability Bill, a vehicle to implement aspects of the reforms recommended in the Sharman Report. I shall outline the proposals in the Bill to restructure public audit.
The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible for most public audits in Northern Ireland. The main exceptions are local government and the Health Service. Health Service audits are carried out by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. In order to enhance the key principle of the independence of public audit, my Executive Colleagues and I intend that the Comptroller and Auditor General should assume responsibility for the statutory audit of Health Service bodies. The Department of Health staff who audit the Health Service will transfer to the employment of the Northern Ireland Audit Office.
Local government audits are different, as district councils are directly elected and local government is primarily funded by the rates, not by central Government. Independent auditing is still a fundamental requirement, but constitutional propriety means that local government should not be the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is an officer of the Assembly. It is, therefore, more appropriate that the responsibility for the audit function should remain with the Department of the Environment. However, for employment purposes, local government auditors should avail themselves of the enhanced career development and training prospects open to them as a result of their being part of a bigger organisation — the Northern Ireland Audit Office. We intend that those staff will be employed by the Northern Ireland Audit Office but will continue to be appointed to local government audits by the Department of the Environment.
It has been a matter of concern, especially to the Public Accounts Committee, that, in the course of his audits, the Comptroller and Auditor General should be able to follow public money to ensure that it is being spent as intended and in a proper manner. That means that he must have proper access to documents. The Sharman review emphasised that the Comptroller and Auditor General should have the full range of powers necessary to do his job properly.
In carrying out statutory audits and value-for-money studies, the Comptroller and Auditor General needs the power to obtain relevant documents. Those are normally available from the public body that he is investigating, but occasionally he will require access to third parties who may hold information that he needs. We could give the Comptroller and Auditor General that power if my Department were to make an Order. However, the principle of independence comes into play again. It is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers should not appear to be dependent on the very Executive that he is auditing, and that is why we have chosen to include access rights in the legislation.
At present, the Comptroller and Auditor General often obtains information from third parties voluntarily. The Bill will mean that people and bodies that have a financial relationship with Government will be required to provide access to information relevant to that relationship. The Bill, therefore, goes further than both the Sharman review and the UK Government’s response to it. It requires not merely grant recipients and contractors, but also those benefiting from other kinds of financial assistance, including loans and guarantees, to provide relevant documents to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Bill, therefore, ensures that he has the necessary powers to do his job.
The Bill also ensures that those powers do not impose too great a burden on those who hold relevant documents. It takes account of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights. In particular, the Comptroller and Auditor General will be aware of the rights of third parties, under article 8(2) of the Convention, not to have the state interfere unreasonably in their private lives and correspondence. The Bill provides a legal framework to cover that and states that the Comptroller and Auditor General can use the power only where it is necessary and reasonable for him to do so. He will also draw up a more detailed code of practice to explain to those likely to be affected how he will use the powers.
There are some situations in which it simply would not be reasonable to expect people to provide information. The most important of those is where a person is in receipt of a social security benefit or a similar grant for their maintenance.
It is reasonable to expect someone who received a grant to insulate a house, for example, to be able to provide receipts and papers. That is what he got the money for. However, it is unreasonable to expect someone on benefits to be able to produce receipts for every item of groceries or clothing he buys, so people on benefits will be excluded from the legislation.
Bodies under the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General at Westminster will also be excluded as a matter of technical jurisdictional courtesy. If the Comptroller and Auditor General requires information held by such bodies, he may obtain it on consultation with his Westminster counterpart.
The Bill then deals with the extension of the number of bodies that will be subject to public audit. The Sharman review recommended that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be the auditor of all major non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs). That is a sound principle of public accountability, and the Executive intend that, where he is not already auditor of such a body, steps should be taken to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General as its statutory auditor. The Bill is one necessary step to ensure that that happens.
However, legislation is only necessary for some NDPBs. The Comptroller and Auditor General is already statutory auditor of many executive NDPBs. Other NDPBs are not founded in statute, so statutory amendment is not required to change their audit regimes. To fulfil the Executive’s policy, statutory amendment is only part of the picture. Accordingly, the Bill lists those major NDPBs that have a foundation in statute for which the Comptroller and Auditor General is not already the appointed auditor, and for which legislative action is necessary.
It is also important to recognise that some NDPBs are advisory in nature or are small and do not have enough funds to make it desirable that we apply the full rigours of a statutory audit regime. Others are limited companies, set up under companies legislation. European Directives govern those who can audit limited companies, and that does not include the Comptroller and Auditor General. Officials in the Department of Trade and Industry in London, in conjunction with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment here, are considering the best way forward on that difficult issue.
The Bill’s final measure again reinforces the important principle of independence. To ensure that the Executive cannot be seen to fetter the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the power to appoint the auditor and accounting officer of the Northern Ireland Audit Office is being transferred. My Department will no longer exercise that power; the Assembly’s Audit Committee will do so.
The Bill does not comprise the entirety of the Executive’s response to the Sharman review. It comprises the element about which it is possible and desirable to legislate. We are actively considering several of the other Sharman proposals.
As regards the timetable for implementation, we intend the new proposals to apply to statutory audits and value-for-money studies taking place in the new financial year — after 1 April 2003. We also intend the transfer of audit staff to take place on that date.
The Bill deals with technical and complex matters, but its aim is simple — to ensure that our Comptroller and Auditor General’s independence is not compromised and that he has all the powers that he needs to ensure that those who are responsible for handling public money are held fully accountable for the use of that money. By enhancing his powers, we enhance accountability both to the Assembly and to the citizens of Northern Ireland. The Bill reorganises audit structures to enhance independence, and it is central to our implementation of the Sharman recommendations. Accordingly, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Mr Francie Molloy: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I thank the Minister and his Department for the regular briefs and updates on the Bill that they have given to the Committee. The Committee has taken a keen interest in financial accountability, audit arrangements and the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General since the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001.
The Committee successfully moved several amendments to the Government Resources and Accounts Bill and accepted an assurance from the then Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mr Mark Durkan, that its concerns, as well as those of the Public Accounts Committee, on the Comptroller and Auditor General’s right to follow public money would be addressed in the Audit and Accountability Bill.
The Committee welcomes the Bill and looks forward to the detailed examination of its provisions at Committee Stage. It especially welcomes the inclusion of all non-departmental public bodies within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the decision to grant him statutory access to documents held by third parties, including subcontractors, in receipt of public money.
In its response to the Department’s consultation document, the Committee accepted the arguments in favour of the reorganisation of the health and personal social services audit and the local government audit, and the greater powers given to the Comptroller and Auditor General in that respect.
The Committee has not commented on the proposed transfer of powers to the Assembly’s Audit Committee and will be seeking the views of Committee members on that before compiling a report. The Committee will also be consulting the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee on the Bill’s general provisions and on the role envisaged for the Public Accounts Committee, which is not made explicit in the Bill.
The Committee would be grateful for clarification on several issues, and the Minister may wish to respond today. Will the Bill provide the Comptroller and Auditor General with access to all organisations that receive public money? If not, what rules will govern access? For what purpose will access be provided, and what powers of inspection will the Comptroller and Auditor General have?
What are the implications of transferring the appointment of the Northern Ireland Audit Office’s accounting officer and auditor to the Assembly’s Audit Committee, and what views has the Audit Committee expressed on that proposal?
The Committee for Finance and Personnel will issue a public notice inviting views on the Bill. It will target organisations and individuals that provided input to the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 and will be requesting further views and information.

Mr Roy Beggs: I also welcome the introduction of the Bill, both as Deputy Chairperson and a member of the Assembly’s Public Accounts Committee.
It is important when handling public money to ensure that it is well used, and that there is value for money and traceability. I welcome the fact that the Bill will widen the Comptroller and Auditor General’s remit to include the Health Service, local government and non-departmental public bodies. That should bring about significant improvements.
Although the Public Accounts Committee has not gone into the detail of the accounts presented to it, the Comptroller and Auditor General has not been the main auditor and has not had the same control in directing the audits. Therefore I welcome the increased responsibility and independence given to him through the Bill.
That will be particularly significant given the increased expenditure allocated to the Health Service. There is concern that money has not been well spent there: the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety has had trouble, because of the complexities of the Health Service, tracing where money has been spent. I hope that, as a result of further input from the Comptroller and Auditor General, constructive suggestions come forward that may assist the Assembly in providing better services to all.
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have experienced unfortunate occasions when non-departmental public bodies have handled public money poorly. The Bill will give the Comptroller and Auditor General an increased remit to ensure that proper standards are applied not only to Departments but to every non-departmental public body. That should have been happening. However, incidents that have been drawn to the Public Accounts Committee’s attention have made us aware that that has not been happening in the past. I hope that this development will increase the level of public scrutiny and increase the public’s confidence in how their money is being spent.

Mr Jim Wilson: It seems that a live mobile phone in the Chamber is interfering with the sound system. Members should check their phones; it is not the Deputy Speaker’s.

Mr John Dallat: As Chairperson of the Audit Committee and a member of the Public Accounts Committee I warmly welcome the Minister’s announcement of the new legislation. Increased powers for the Comptroller and Auditor General will enable that office to conduct audit trails that will send out a clear message, particularly to non-departmental Government bodies and, as Mr Beggs said, to the health boards and trusts, that the gravy train has at last run out of steam. The legislation has the potential to put the fat cats out of business once and for all.
The new legislation has the full endorsement of the Audit Committee and the Public Accounts Committee. Members of those Committees recognise that it will elevate public accountability to a new level, where nearly every pound of public money can be scrutinised to see whether it was spent honestly, wisely and in the best interests of those who matter most — the people. Increased Audit Office powers mean that additional resources will have to be found to pay for the additional work. Nevertheless, I am certain that the return to the taxpayer will be at least tenfold.
One of the greatest tragedies of direct rule was the inability to ask questions about accountability. Even when the Assembly came into being and was allowed to get on with the business of scrutiny, the Public Accounts Committee had only a limited involvement. Many large bodies that guzzled huge amounts of public money were outside its remit.
The impression has been created that the health boards and trusts are bottomless pits that consume hugely increased budgets, only to provide a service that is getting worse. The Comptroller and Auditor General’s increased powers mean that Assembly Members, if we are allowed to, will be much better able to ask why we have increased waiting lists for operations, why the trolley waits have become a national scandal, and why bed blocking is now the most fashionable medical term in common use. I do not, I hasten to add, single out the Health Service. There are other equally important examples that I could use, as, no doubt, other Members will.
The new legislation will allow the Assembly to delve into the affairs of many other public bodies. I hope that those who in the past foolishly described members of the Public Accounts Committee as begrudgers, because they dared question how public money was spent, will draw their horns in. I hope that they will lend their full support to ensuring that never again will we have the scandals that have gone before, and that the services provided are the very best and serve the interest of nobody but the long-suffering public.
All that depends on our ability to defend the institutions of democracy. I hope that the weeping willows who are undermining the Assembly at present, and who do not show a great deal of interest in such mundane matters as increased powers for the Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee, will prove me wrong. Meanwhile, I thank the former Minister of Finance and Personnel, Mark Durkan, and the current Minister, Seán Farren, for their total co-operation with the Audit Committee in ensuring that the legislation has the broadest possible impact on how public money is accounted for.

Mr Peter Weir: As the previous Member laid down the challenge of avoiding begrudgery — a trap into which he himself occasionally falls — I shall try to look at the Bill constructively. We cautiously welcome the Audit and Accountability Bill.
It is welcome because of the need to increase the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers. We live in an era in which money can be moved around more quickly than before — and with more hidden quality to it, we live in an electronic age in which powers so extensive are important to ensure that public money is spent correctly. Moreover, we live in an era in which the public, rightly, has a greater expectation that their money is well spent. As such, the principle behind the Bill that greater audit and accountability powers be given to the Comptroller and Auditor General is right.
I also welcome the principles outlined in some aspects of the Bill. The fact that audit control seems to have been given to all non-departmental bodies is welcome. An increase in statutory access to documents that are held by third parties was highlighted in the Committee for Finance and Personnel by DUP members and others when discussing the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. Therefore I welcome those changes.
The Committee for Finance and Personnel, the Public Accounts Committee and the Audit Committee have also stated that the Comptroller and Auditor General should be given a proper degree of independence. The proposals contained in the Bill that afford that person the required level of independence to properly carry out his or her work are also welcomed. It makes sense that the Comptroller and Auditor General is the overseer of all Government activity. Therefore the movement of the health and local government functions into the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor General is logical.
However, I do strike a note of caution — and I mean no disrespect to the Minister or the proposals — because the Audit and Accountability Bill deals with complex financial arrangements. As such, it would be foolhardy for members of the Committee for Finance and Personnel to rubber-stamp what is before them now. The Committee will want to scrutinise the Bill to ensure that the key test is met, and, as the Minister rightly said, that test should be whether the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to follow the money.
When discussing the Government Resources and Accounts Bill, the Finance Committee expressed reservations about the Department of Finance and Personnel’s apparent proposals. At that stage, the Committee looked at several proposed amendments. The Committee did not move those amendments in the end, because assurances were given that the concerns that they addressed would be dealt with in the Audit and Accountability Bill. It appears that those concerns have been met and that the Department of Finance and Personnel made moves to ensure that that was so. However, it is important that the Committee looks at the fine detail of the Bill to ensure that the assurances given during discussions on the Government Resources and Accounts Bill have been fulfilled. I hope that that is the case, because it is important to get it right now.
I am glad that we have taken the best aspects of the Sharman Report and seem to be implementing them. However, there is an indication that the Bill rightly moves beyond the Sharman Report. In Northern Ireland — above all parts of the United Kingdom — there is a need for close scrutiny of audit and accountability. There has not been close enough scrutiny of audit and accountability for 30 years because of direct rule. However, the people of Northern Ireland are concerned that devolution has not made sufficient difference to their daily lives, and that their money is not being as well spent as it could be by this institution. It is important that Members satisfy people’s interest in this matter.
Northern Ireland’s public sector is larger than that of any other part of the United Kingdom, with regard to its expenditure and the vast range of bodies that can spend that money. Therefore, there is a particular need for scrutiny in Northern Ireland.
It is important that the Bill give greater powers to the Comptroller and Auditor General to provide sufficient scrutiny to ensure that people get value for money. The key test for any Bill is how it impacts on people’s daily lives. If the Bill ensures that money is better spent and that it reaches people, rather than being wasted and spent corruptly, it will be a valuable contribution to society.
We give the Bill a cautious welcome. However, we wish to ensure that the details match up to the principles that have been outlined. We hope that, when the Bill comes back for consideration, our questions and concerns will be properly addressed. Then we can move forward together with a Bill that satisfies the vast range of opinion in the Assembly Chamber, so that people are properly represented and their money is properly spent.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the general principles enshrined in the Bill. In short, it gives the Comptroller and Auditor General greater access to follow taxpayers’ money. One of the greatest responsibilities of an elected representative in a body such as the Assembly is to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly spent, in a manner and for the purposes for which the House voted it.
Over the past few years, it has come to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee that there has been a bad attitude towards the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. In the past, I have characterised that attitude as "Well, it is coming off a broad back, and, therefore, it does not really matter." However, the challenge of every Member and the officials in Departments that have the onerous responsibility of accounting for taxpayers’ money comes in the following questions: if it were my money, would I spend it in that fashion? Would I adopt the same attitude, or would I be more cautious about how I spent it? If they can answer those questions in the affirmative, the chances are that the taxpayer will receive good value for money and that it will be spent for the purpose for which Members voted it.
However, that has not always been the case. Yesterday, we had a discussion wherein some Members suggested that it was not necessary to fill in little pieces of paper and that money should have been poured into an organisation because the cause underlying that body was good, and I accept that. However, we are responsible for every penny of taxpayers’ money, and, therefore, we should abhor any shortcuts.
Reference was made yesterday to credit cards, which we will discuss later today. There is an attitude that must be changed. The sentiments and principles in the Bill will go some way towards changing attitudes, because it is all about the independence of auditing. It is all about transparency and accountability, and, if those factors are fed into the system, we can, and should, have a better system.
I concur with Mr Weir. We are charged with the responsibility of scrutinising the Bill in the Committee for Finance and Personnel and of ensuring that, to the best of our ability, it properly fulfils the functions that we, as elected representatives speaking on behalf of the taxpayer, require and demand. I hope that the Bill will fulfil those functions, and, at a cursory glance, I believe that it will.
I thank the Minister of Finance and Personnel and his predecessor, Mark Durkan. I recall the Finance and Personnel Committee’s discussions of the Government Resources and Accounts Bill. I had profound doubt about whether the avoidance of producing a Bill that would implement the recommendations of the Sharman review had more to do with expediency than with a desire to move forward. The Department has honoured its commitments, for which I commend it. I look forward to the Committee’s forthcoming scrutiny of the Bill.

Dr Sean Farren: I thank all the Members who commented usefully and positively on the general principles of the Audit and Accountability Bill. The Assembly is working together towards a common goal. I pay tribute to the Committee of Finance and Personnel’s efforts to ensure that we work closely towards the goal of ensuring that the Comptroller and Auditor General will be as independent as possible and will have all the powers necessary to ensure that those responsible for handling public money are held fully accountable for its use.
It is important to appreciate that the Bill does not stand alone. It is part of a web of accountability procedures, laws and structures that have been discussed in the debate and that bring us closer to the goal of ensuring proper accountability for the use of public funds.
Several Members expressed concern about the possibility that public money is not being spent properly. The Bill, on its own, does not provide a fail-safe guarantee that mismanagement, laxity and fraud will never again occur in the public sector in Northern Ireland. Those who seek to perpetrate fraud will continue to scheme and devise the means to do so, but we can try to develop mechanisms to prevent fraud, laxity and mismanagement as far as humanly possible, and, if they do happen, to detect them.
Although evidence of mismanagement, laxity and fraud emerges from time to time, we can be proud of the standards of accountability that existed in the public sector, notwithstanding the absence of the scrutiny by local politicians that is now possible under devolution.
My experience and the evidence demonstrate that there are high levels of probity and responsibility in all sectors of public service. We should be proud that our public service operates, by and large, to very high standards. That notwithstanding, it is the Assembly’s responsibility to ensure full accountability, which is as transparent as possible.
I shall touch on some of the points raised by Members. Mr Molloy, speaking as Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, asked for what purpose access is provided. The clear purpose is for statutory audit or value-for-money studies, particularly in the case of third parties. He also asked what powers of inspection are given. The powers are to request documents that are relevant to the audit or the value-for-money study in question from persons or bodies in certain relationships with the Government.
Mr Molloy asked about the implications of the transfer to the Audit Committee. That will give the Assembly rather than the Executive the power to appoint the accounting officer. It will enhance the independence of public audit, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel will discuss that with the Audit Committee.
Mr Beggs touched on the audit of the Health Service. The Comptroller and Auditor General is already the statutory auditor of the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. This Bill will make him auditor of health trusts and boards. At present he reports to the Assembly on the findings of the primary auditors of those bodies. The auditors are frequently from the private sector. This Bill makes the Comptroller and Auditor General the primary auditor of the whole health sector. I assure Mr Beggs that the public can continue to have full confidence in the statutory audits and value-for-money studies of the health sector in the same way as before the reform.
Mr Molloy raised a point that I should have touched on regarding consultation with specific Committees, one being the Public Accounts Committee. My predecessor gave an undertaking during the passage of the Government Resources and Accounts Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 to consult on further steps to improve audit and accountability arrangements in Northern Ireland and revisit the subject of further legislation as we are doing. He said that we should carry out a consultation exercise in that regard on all the matters covered in this Bill and on the wider issues in the Sharman review of audit accountability from September 2001 until the end of November 2001.
We received 56 written responses, including those from Departments, local councils, voluntary and community organisations, professional bodies, audit bodies and individuals. The Public Accounts Committee held a public hearing on the Sharman review on 13 June 2002, and the Committee for Finance and Personnel has also taken a very keen interest in the subject. A summary of responses to the public consultation has been prepared and is due to be published very soon.
Other Members said that they would be scrutinising the Bill in greater detail during the Committee Stage. I accept and acknowledge the compliments paid to my predecessor regarding his commitments, on which we are now attempting to deliver. That is why I feel that Members will see, in the final stages of this Bill, that the legislation will be effective and ensure that the objective of full and proper accountability will be achieved.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Audit and Accountability Bill (NIA 6/02) be agreed.

Mr Jim Wilson: The Bill now stands referred to the Committee for Finance and Personnel.

Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) Bill: Second Stage

Ms Bairbre de Brún: Molaim go dtugtar a Dhara Céim don Bhille Sláinte, Seirbhísí Sóisialta agus Pearsanta (Cáilíocht, Feabhsúchán agus Rialachán).
Sa chaibidil ‘Ag Obair d’fhonn Pobal Níos Sláintiúla’ ina chéad Chlár Rialtais, thug an Coiste Feidhmiúcháin gealltanas creat a fheidhmiú le cáilíocht na seirbhísí a sholáthraíonn na seirbhísí sláinte, pearsanta agus sóisialta a ardú. Mar chéad chéim leis an ghealltanas seo a chomhlíonadh, chuir mé mo chuid moltaí, dar teideal ‘An Cleachtas is Fearr — An Cúram is Fearr’, faoi chomhairliúchán poiblí in Aibreán 2001. Léirigh na freagraí ar na moltaí seo go raibh tacaíocht leathan ann d’fheidhmiú na socruithe nua le taca a chur faoi cháilíocht na seirbhísí sláinte, pearsanta agus sóisialta agus le feabhas a chur ar rialú na seirbhísí agus leis an rialú sin a leathnú.
Foilsíodh torthaí an chomhairliúcháin ar 11 Meitheamh 2002. Ar an dáta céanna, d’fhógair mé mo chinntí ar phríomhghnéithe an chreata nua a leagadh amach le cáilíocht na seirbhísí cúraim agus sláinte a sholáthraítear anseo a chur chun cinn. Go bunúsach, is féidir príomhghnéithe an chreata a achoimriú mar seo leanas: córas le caighdeáin agus treoirlínte nua a fhorbairt nó na cinn atá ann cheana féin a chur i bhfeidhm; rialú na seirbhísí a leathnú le réimse i bhfad níos leithne seirbhísí a chlúdú; caighdeáin íosta cúraim a fhorbairt do sheirbhísí rialaithe; dualgas reachtúil cáilíochta a chur ar na seirbhísí sláinte, pearsanta agus sóisialta; córas rialachais ar chúram sóisialta cliniciúil a thabhairt isteach; comhlacht singil rialaithe agus cigireachta neamhspleách — údarás feabhsúcháin agus rialaithe na seirbhísí sláinte agus sóisialta — a bhunú ag a mbeidh an dá ról de sheirbhísí a rialú agus cigireacht a dhéanamh ar rialachas sna seirbhísí sláinte, pearsanta agus sóisialta; creataí forbartha seirbhíse cosúil le creataí na seirbhíse náisiúnta i Sasana, in Albain agus sa Bhreatain Bheag a fhorbairt nó a oiriúnú lena n-úsáid anseo; agus creat bainistíochta ar fheidhmíocht a fhorbairt.
I beg to move
That the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) Bill (NIA 7/02) be agreed.
In the chapter "Working For A Healthier People" in their first Programme for Government, the Executive made a commitment to put a framework in place to raise the quality of services provided to the community across health and personal social services. As the first step to fulfil that commitment, I presented my proposals entitled ‘Best Practice — Best Care’ for public consultation in April 2001. The responses to those proposals demonstrated widespread support for the introduction of new arrangements to underpin the quality of health and personal social services and to approve and extend the regulation of services.
The results of the consultation were published on 11 June 2002. On the same date, I announced my decisions on the main elements of a new framework designed to promote the quality of health and care services delivered here. The main elements of the framework can be summarised as follows: a system for developing new, or implementing existing, standards and guidelines; regulation of services to be extended to cover a much wider range of services; minimum care standards to be developed for regulated services; a statutory duty of quality to be introduced in health and personal social services; a system of clinical and social care governance to be introduced; a single independent regulation and inspection body — the health and social services regulation and improvement authority — to be established, with the twin roles of regulating services and inspecting governance within health and personal social services; service development frameworks, similar to national service frameworks in England, Scotland and Wales, to be developed or adapted for use here; and a performance management framework to be developed.
The Bill will give effect to the elements of the overall quality framework that require legislative backing. The Bill’s various provisions need to be considered in the context of the overall quality framework. It provides for a statutory duty of quality to apply to all health and personal social services bodies that deliver services. It establishes a health and social services regulation and improvement authority, which will be responsible for monitoring the quality of services delivered by the health and personal social services by reviewing clinical and social care governance arrangements within those services. It provides for the new regulation and improvement authority to be responsible for the regulation and inspection of an extended range of services.
Every year, hospitals here provide more than one million outpatient treatments. There are 500,000 admissions to hospitals or day procedure clinics every year. Every day, 30,000 people see a doctor or practice nurse, and 120,000 people will visit a community pharmacy. An average of 180,000 people contact social services every year. More than 20,000 elderly people are supported in their homes. The vast majority of people receive the quality of services that they require. Regrettably, however, some service users do not.
The challenge that the health and personal social services face is to guarantee a quality of service that the public can expect to receive, regardless of where they go for treatment or care and regardless of which organisation provides it. The many medical, professional and technological advances, and increased public expectation of the standards of services delivered, make it vital that health and personal social services modernise and improve in the future, to enable those services to deliver a fast and effective high-quality service. Part of the emphasis on quality agenda is on ensuring that services and treatments are delivered safely and that steps are taken to reduce risk and to avoid problems.
At present, many health and social care services, including those to children and vulnerable adults, are not subject to independent regulation and inspection. Regulated services are often not delivered according to common agreed standards, and that leads to unacceptable variations in the standard of care and treatment.
Publicity surrounding recent scandals in England, such as the Shipman case and the Bristol Royal Infirmary inquiry, combined with instances here, such as revelations about organ retention, and recent concerns about the storage of embryos and sperm samples, have shaken public confidence in our services. The introduction of a specific framework for clinical and social care governance will mark a major change for health and personal social services.
Governance arrangements are, of course, already in place to ensure overall probity, transparency and adherence to public service values. Clinical and social care governance, backed by a statutory duty of quality, will mean that, for the first time, health and social services boards and trusts will have to place the provision of high-quality services to the forefront of their statutory duties in the same way as they must adhere to statutory financial probity.
A framework for clinical social care governance will bring together all the existing activity relating to the delivery of high-quality services, including education and research, audit, risk management and complaints management. Many health and personal social services organisations have already begun to develop their own systems, based on systems elsewhere. The Bill’s intention is to ensure that a uniform set of principles will be applied to our unique organisational structures, and to take account of how services are delivered here.
Health and personal social services organisations will be accountable for continuously monitoring and improving the quality of their services, and safeguarding high standards of care and treatment. Organisations will take corporate responsibility for performance and for provision of the highest possible standard of clinical and social care. The new arrangements will build on and strengthen existing activity relating to the delivery of high-quality care and treatment, including audit activity; identifying, promoting and sharing good practice; risk assessment and risk management; quality standards; complaints management; clinical and social care effectiveness; evidence-based practice; research and education; and effective leadership and management.
To ensure independent monitoring of clinical and social care governance, a single body, the health and personal social services regulation and improvement authority, will be created. Its core functions will be to regulate and inspect services, provide advice, conduct reviews of clinical and social care governance arrangements, carry out systematic service reviews and undertake investigations. The new authority’s powers will, therefore, be wide ranging.
In addition to its regulatory function, the authority will take the lead in conducting reviews of clinical and social care governance arrangements. Through a rolling programme of local reviews of health and personal social services organisations, it will independently scrutinise the clinical and social care governance arrangements developed to support, promote and deliver high-quality services.
It will also help organisations to identify and tackle serious or persistent shortcomings in clinical or social care delivery, with the ultimate goal of supporting organisations in the delivery of high-quality, safe services. The authority will have a key role in providing users, the public, the Assembly and me, as Minister, with the assurance that systems are in place to ensure that the highest possible standards are adhered to and that the risk of something going wrong is greatly reduced.
Many initiatives are ongoing to promote continuous professional development through lifelong learning and strengthening professional regulation. My proposals will bring together those initiatives so that they can be managed and monitored in one framework for improving the quality of services.
Staff must also share ideas and good practice and take responsibility for the quality of services that they provide. Staff skills represent a significant investment that organisations must maintain by enabling employees to develop their skills and practice. A highly trained, competent and confident workforce is fundamental to securing the delivery of high-quality services.
A summary of the Bill’s provisions is in the explanatory and financial memorandum. The Bill is in five parts. Part I deals with the establishment of the new authority and its general responsibility. Part II covers regulatory procedures. Part III deals with the statutory duty of quality and the new body’s responsibilities. Part IV lists the new body’s functions. Part V deals with the authority’s powers of inspection and review and the departmental power to introduce minimum standards.
I want to hear Members’ views, and will, therefore, conclude my remarks. The Bill represents a radical agenda for the Executive, the Assembly, my Department and health and personal social services. Service users will benefit from the extension of regulation to cover a wider range of services, including those delivered to the most vulnerable users — the elderly and children.
Much work is being done on those arrangements that do not require legislative backing, and much work will need to be done in the future. It will take time to achieve all that we plan to achieve. I will try to answer as many Members’ points as I can at the end of the debate. If there is anything to which I am unable to respond today, I will write to the Member concerned. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Dr Joe Hendron: I welcome the Bill. It follows through on proposals contained in the consultation document ‘Best Practice — Best Care’ to set clear standards for, and to improve the monitoring and regulation of, health and personal social services. I also welcome the Minister’s presence in the Chamber today.
There is an increasing and justifiable focus on how money is spent and on whether value-for-money services are being provided. That is a burning issue, especially for the Health Service, which has an annual budget of some £3 billion that accounts for some 40% of Northern Ireland’s block grant. The demographic trends in the preliminary census results that were published yesterday underline the increasing pressures that the Health Service will face in years to come. It underscores the need to test the effectiveness of the services provided by all Health Service bodies and to focus on areas in which performance can be improved.
The Bill’s aims are positive, but they must lead to the introduction of more economical and effective work practices, minimise bureaucracy and improve quality standards. It is imperative that the Minister take the necessary steps to demonstrate that limited resources are being deployed in the most effective and efficient way for the maximum benefit of the population. Patients who use the Health Service are entitled to expect quality care that is delivered consistently across board and trust boundaries.
I am glad that the legislation has been introduced to the Assembly. It will establish a new, independent body that will assume overall responsibility for the regulation of services and for the inspection and monitoring of the clinical and social care governance arrangements in health and personal social services. We have been told that it will cost £5·6 million a year to operate the body, which is £2·8 million more than at present. The Minister must demonstrate that that investment will provide a better regional service. She must convince the public that the new authority will not simply add another layer of bureaucracy, but that it will play a key role in ensuring that healthcare standards are being met and that the issue of clinical and social care governance is being addressed.
I welcome the establishment of clinical and social care governance. For many years, the teaching profession has been subject to inspections, and many of us can remember inspectors visiting schools. As someone who practised medicine in west Belfast for many years, I often wondered why teachers should have had to undergo inspections when doctors did not. I welcome the fact that all health professionals will be subject to clinical and social care governance.
The recent inquiry into the use of human organs highlights the clear need for the establishment of a watchdog to check that corporate organisations have best-care systems in place and are adopting the right practices. The Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety understands that the new authority will produce an annual report for the Department and will publish the results of its inspections. As always, much of the detail will lie in the Regulations that are to follow, which the Committee will scrutinise.
The Minister, as the authoriser of the new body’s work programme, must demonstrate clearly that her Department will hold the body to account. That is important. I am pleased that the Bill will give powers to the authority to assess the quality of some unregulated services that are provided by trusts, such as fostering and adoption. The Committee wants service provision in those areas to be improved to ease pressure on the children’s residential care sector. It is important that the statutory duty to deliver quality be applied equally to all services that are delivered by health and personal social services, whether they are provided by the statutory, voluntary or community sector.
The Bill does not set out a timetable for the regulation of services, which will undoubtedly depend on resources. The explanatory and financial memorandum indicates that the cost of running the new authority will lead to a net increase in expenditure of £2·8 million a year. Assumptions are made about the estimated income from the services to which regulation is extended. It is also pointed out that the level of fees has not been decided, and the minimum standards for the regulated services have not been developed. Extensive consultation on those matters is needed because they will directly impact on the minimum standards for healthcare providers such as nursing homes.
The Committee will focus its attention on the funding arrangements that the Department puts in place to support the Bill’s provisions. Those arrangements must ensure that the worthy aims of the legislation translate into genuine action to promote the quality of health and social care services, and that those aims do not founder because the necessary resources have not been committed. That is important. We do not want to be in a position in which, although proper minimum standards are set, staff cannot deliver them as a result of resource constraints. The Health Committee recently heard from Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance (NIPSA) officials of the deep frustration of social workers who cannot meet the quality standards set in respect of their statutory duties towards children. Although that is the case across Northern Ireland, it is especially so in the Foyle area, as we were recently informed by social workers. I trust that any resourcing gaps that are identified by the systems put in place to establish clear standards will be immediately addressed.
The introduction of a Bill that provides a framework to improve the quality of healthcare by establishing consistent minimum standards as well as establish a system of clinical and social care governance and improve monitoring and inspection, must be welcomed. My Committee Colleagues and I look forward to exploring the provisions of the Bill in detail at Committee Stage.

Ms Sue Ramsey: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. In the previous debate, almost every Member touched on accountability and value for money in all Departments. I agree 100% with that, but it must happen across the board. That is why I was surprised at the attitude of some Members today to yesterday’s debate on the Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre. With that in mind, I welcome the Bill and agree with the Minister that it introduces a radical agenda. It aims to develop overall standards in the Health Service and secures local accountability for the delivery of services. Moreover, it will improve the monitoring and regulation of those services.
Like the Minister and the Chairperson of the Committee for Health, Social Services and Public Safety, I welcome the proposal to establish a single health and social services regulation and improvements authority. Trusts and boards will have a statutory obligation towards equality, and, during the Bill’s Committee Stage, I intend to ask officials exactly how that will be introduced and whether there will be sanctions against the chief executives of trusts that fail to meet that obligation. The Bill’s impact will be beneficial for clients, service users and Health Service personnel. It should end the postcode lottery that can exist with quality care and that Members have referred to time and time again. The Bill will have a positive effect on protecting the rights of vulnerable people, whether in children’s homes or in homes for the elderly.
I also welcome the legislation and look forward to its Committee Stage.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: Alliance supports the Bill to establish an authority to oversee the delivery of services by health and personal social services, as well as by our independent and voluntary private sectors. The Bill will go far towards achieving the goal of securing local accountability for the delivery of services and will improve their monitoring and regulation.
The Bill closes a variety of loopholes. Previously, some health and social services were exempt, for one reason or another, from proper regulation. For example, wholly private GP call-out services will be included in the regulatory framework as will private primary-care practices.
The House will not be surprised to hear of my particular interest in the section of the Bill that deals with personal care. I endorse the inclusion of residential care homes in the proposed regulatory scheme. I am pleased that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety considered the 1999 report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly.
Personal care is defined in the Bill as:
"(a) action taken to promote rehabilitation;
(b) assistance with physical or social needs; and
(c) counselling".
Such assistance can include help with bathing, toileting, dressing and eating for people who cannot perform those tasks for themselves. The Bill recognises the distinction between the services provided in residential care homes and in nursing homes, and that is incorporated in the Bill.
Furthermore, I welcome the fact that domiciliary care agencies are to be included in the proposed regulatory schemes. Domiciliary care agencies provide vital services for people in their homes. Given the significance of personal care that is recognised in the Bill, and the services provided by nursing homes, why can the House not vote at an early date to provide personal care on the same terms as nursing care?
Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill. That such a breadth of health and social services is being amalgamated in a singular, regulatory framework will help everyone involved to deliver the best possible care and practice.
For the Alliance Party and for me, the recognition of personal care only serves to underline its significance in our society. If the Bill is passed, I shall continue to campaign for free personal care in the new regulatory scheme. The Alliance Party fully supports the Bill.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: I thank Members for their attention to the detail of the Bill and their warm welcome to its provisions. Several Members who spoke referred to the added value that will result from the establishment of the new authority, which will provide an independent check of the quality of the services delivered by the health and personal social services (HPSS) and the independent sector.
The new authority will provide service users with greater safeguards on the services that they receive; reduce inequalities and improve equity by ensuring that services are delivered consistently across the North to meet the same minimum standards, regardless of where people live and whether services are delivered by the HPSS or the independent sector; and ensure that systems are in place to address poor performance. Therefore, it will also help to reduce the clinical negligence bill, which is an important factor for Members.
The new authority will mean that, for the first time, the quality of services provided by HPSS will be independently monitored against agreed minimum quality standards. To ensure that effective clinical and social care governance arrangements are in place, the new authority will regulate more of the services delivered to children and vulnerable adults, including some that are provided by HPSS.
Providers will not be able to register those services that are to be regulated unless they meet minimum standards, and failure to register will mean that providers may not legally continue to provide those services. The new authority will also review the quality of, and access to, services across the North.
Between 1991 and 2001, £55 million was paid in compensation for clinical negligence. It is to be hoped that the work of the new authority will reduce that amount. Its work will also ensure that people have the assurance of minimum standards against which all services will be judged.
Several Members referred to the Regulations. I agree that further work will arise, and I look forward to hearing the points that Colleagues raise during Committee Stage. It is to be hoped that I shall be able to provide further assurance then. Once the Bill’s principal Regulations have been drafted, we shall consult on them before they are laid before the House.
I hope that I have dealt with Members’ main points. As I said, I shall try to deal in writing with any points that I have not covered. I shall ask officials to look at the record, and I look forward to working with the Committee on the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Second Stage of the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) Bill (NIA 7/02) be agreed.

Regional Chamber of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe: MLA Appointment

Mr David Ford: I beg to move
That this Assembly appoints Seán Neeson MLA as its nominee to the Regional Chamber of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe.
The Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe is one of those bodies that rejoices in having an unpronounceable acronym. It was established in 1994 by the Council of Europe — not by the European Union. As a result, it represents 41 countries, which range from Portugal to the Russian Federation and from Cyprus to Iceland. It is significantly larger than the European Union, with which the Assembly deals more often.
Two chambers represent regional and local authorities. There are 291 full members, 18 of whom come from the UK. Of those 18, one Member of the Scottish Parliament, one Member of the National Assembly for Wales, and one Member of our Assembly sit in the chamber of regions.
The congress advises the Committee of Ministers and the parliamentary assembly at the Council of Europe, and provides a forum in which the experience of members of local and regional authorities across the continent is pooled. In doing so, it organises conferences and prepares reports on local democracy, especially that which is developing in central and eastern Europe. The congress also monitors the European Charter of Local Self-Government, to which the UK signed up in 1998. The Assembly has some catching up to do in terms of the powers and responsibilities of local government.
I have already said that one MLA sits as a full member in the chamber of regions. Cllr Jim Dillon of Lisburn City Council represents district councillors from Northern Ireland in the chamber of local authorities.
I have pleasure in proposing Mr Seán Neeson as the Assembly’s nominee to sit in the chamber of regions. He has had a keen interest in European matters, which dates at least from when he was elected to the previous Assembly in 1982. Before devolution, he regularly attended meetings of the EU Committee of the Regions as a representative of Northern Ireland. He has the ability to represent the range of opinions that are in the Assembly.
I am grateful to David Trimble and Mark Durkan for supporting the concept that this nomination should go to a member of a party that is not in the Executive. I am unsure whether they acted in their capacities as the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, or merely as party leaders, but I welcome the support of the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP. As well as taking party considerations into account, Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan also readily agreed to my suggestion that Mr Neeson would be an excellent choice personally.
I frequently criticise the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which is my function as an Opposition Member. However, it is appropriate that I should generously praise the Ulster Unionist Party and the SDLP for their support.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Is the Member apologising to them?

Mr David Ford: No. I am happy to accept anybody’s support when they show some grace, but that is not always forthcoming.
As for the amendment, it is for Members to choose how they view the two candidates. It is certainly not my position to criticise Edwin Poots. However, I was slightly surprised when I read the amendment, specifically because Mr Poots was described as
"Chairman of the Committee of the Centre".
I accept that that Committee has a remit to shadow OFMDFM in all aspects of its work, including European matters, but that remit overwhelmingly refers to European Union matters, not wider European issues.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: That is rubbish.

Mr David Ford: Mr Paisley clearly wants to talk about waste, but we shall wait to hear what he says later on.
It should not be assumed that the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre should be automatically proposed as the Assembly’s nominee on a matter that concerns the Council of Europe, as opposed to the European Union.
Mr Poots is a member of the same city council as Mr Dillon, who sits as a representative of local authorities, and whom I mentioned earlier. Although the relationship between Mr Poots and MrDillon appears to be fractious, they both belong to the Unionist family. To provide a more balanced representation for Northern Ireland, and taking into account Mr Neeson’s personal qualities, it is appropriate that he should represent the Assembly in the congress. I have pleasure in proposing Mr Neeson as the Assembly’s nominee.

Mr Maurice Morrow: You were a Unionist for a while too, David.

Mr David Ford: Not for long.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 1, delete "Seán Neeson MLA" and insert
"Edwin Poots MLA, Chairman of the Committee of the Centre,".
Edwin Poots had hoped to be in the Chamber for today’s debate, but he is chairing the subcommittee of the Committee of the Centre’s EU inquiry. He will endeavour to join us at some point during the debate. In chairing that subcommittee, Mr Poots has the confidence of the House. It is nonsense to say that neither the House nor the Committee of the Centre has any interest in a widening Europe, and I shall put that argument to rest. The European Union is widening and it is essential that Northern Ireland, as part of a member state of the European Union, play its role and contribute to that debate.
I agree with Mr Ford’s analysis of the history of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe. However, it would be wrong to accept that the Committee of the Centre has no interest in a widening Europe. It does have an interest in that important issue, and the Assembly must continue to play its role.
My party leader has received the largest share of the European election vote in Northern Ireland not once, not twice, but on five occasions. In 1999, 192,762 people put the DUP and its leader first in the European election, because they recognised that the DUP’s voice was essential to represent Northern Ireland authentically in Europe.
My party’s voice must also be heard in the appointment of the Assembly’s nominee to the regional chamber of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe, and it would be wrong to set it aside in this matter. The DUP was kept off the Committee of the Regions, on which the Alliance Party had a member. The Northern Ireland representation on that committee was woeful and disappointing, and the voice of Northern Ireland was not properly heard. It is our hope that that situation will not be repeated in such an important body as this.
Both the SDLP and the UUP already have representation in the regional chamber of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe through council. Given the support that my party enjoys on European issues in the Province, it must be represented. It would be wrong to put a party into that body that would be boxing above its weight.
I do not want to participate in a slanging match or a history lesson about the Alliance Party’s stand on European issues. However, in the European election in 1999, the people of Northern Ireland gave the Alliance Party 2% of the vote, because its voice was not authentic on European issues and was unrepresentative. Mr Neeson was the candidate who received that 2% vote. We would be doing the House a disservice if we ignored what the people of this country said only a few years ago on that issue.
Our nominee, Mr Edwin Poots, has been a local councillor for the past six years. He has distinguished himself as the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, an appointment that was supported by the House. He led the Committee in its most recent European report, which demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of European matters in the context of the European community and on the issue of a broadening Europe. It is essential that the person appointed has such experience and knowledge, and, as I said, he has led that Committee on European matters. That report received the endorsement of the House, and it follows that the person best placed to take on this role is the Chairperson of the Committee of the Centre, which has a brief to consider European issues.
Edwin Poots is young, and it would send out the right message to appoint a young person, irrespective of party background, to represent a young and dynamic Ulster. It would be wrong to overlook that important point, because Northern Ireland has one of the youngest populations in Europe. Too many people would dismiss that, but it is one of our strong points.
It gives me pleasure to support the amendment. I hope that Members will consider the political and non-political arguments and will appoint the candidate who is capable, has the required knowledge and expertise, and has had the Assembly’s support when dealing with European issues. If that happens, this body will be able to genuinely represent people’s wishes and concerns.
I spoke to the SDLP and Ulster Unionist Party Whips, and it was made clear that neither of the nominees had the official support of those parties. It seems that something was said to Mr Ford to indicate that Mr Neeson would be regarded as the unofficial nominee of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. That is what was imparted this morning. The Whips said that the parties would not be voting on this, but they should vote, and they should vote for our amendment.
Members should not be left with the impression that Mr Neeson is the official nominee of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. If he is, Members may wish to consider whether they want to support someone who may be in the pockets of the First and Deputy First Ministers because of that. That would not send out the right signal. Mr Poots, however, has the support of the Assembly because he has been Chairperson of the Committee with responsibility for European issues.

Mr Robert McCartney: When I was listening to David Ford’s eulogy, in which he spoke of the UUP’s and SDLP’s support for his nominee, I was minded to warn him of the exhibition that he made of himself when he became the back end of a horse for a day and produced the sort of political material that, in equine terms, the back end of a horse might produce. He was then totally shafted, because, having received some sort of a promise of a review, he got absolutely nothing. He displayed a degree of political judgement that would make one wonder.
David Ford’s candidate was formerly the leader of the Alliance Party, and, curiously enough, was succeeded by Mr Ford, who is now attempting to hand out some sort of consolation prize. Mr Neeson, who we are about to suggest should represent us, displayed even more monumental political misjudgement than his new leader when he decided that the Alliance Party would withdraw its candidates from contesting certain constituencies, including North Down. I make no apologies, not so much for pointing out what happened to Bob McCartney, but for pointing out the dire consequences of that decision for Mr Neeson, whose position was rapidly usurped by his current benefactor.
12.00
Now we are required to support Mr Neeson. However, what support has he received from his own party? It failed to put him forward as a parliamentary candidate, despite his being party leader, and subsequently it gave him the bullet when it came to his continued occupancy of the august position of leader of a party that —

A Member: He still has a party.

Mr Robert McCartney: He may have a party, but it seems to dissolve itself when elections approach. Mr Paisley Jnr has mentioned the debacle of his European representation in rather kinder terms than I would employ.
Let us look at who the Assembly is intending to send forth as its representative — a person who has not distinguished himself in his own party, who has been dismissed or discharged as being suitable for the party leadership, and who has not enjoyed the support of the rank and file of the people who voted in the European election. He is now being offered some sort of consolation prize as the party representative. If the Assembly wants to send forth as its plenipotentiary in these matters such an exhibit of political success, so be it. However, before it does so, Members should take stock of just what this candidate has offered in the past and what he now has to offer in what may be the autumn of his political career.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I support the motion and Mr Neeson’s appointment. Mr Neeson is a decent, honourable man with a pro-European attitude. He would do the Assembly proud as its representative in Europe. Are we seriously to believe Mr McCartney and those from the DUP who suggest that we should send an anti-European to Europe to represent our interests? The DUP leader went there to destroy Europe. We want someone who can represent us in a more positive manner. Seán Neeson is the person for the job, and I will support him.

Mr Derek Hussey: Is Mr O’Connor suggesting that the majority in the House is pro-Europe?

Mr Danny O'Connor: I suggest that the majority in the House would be happy to accept all the money, jobs and benefits that come from Europe.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I suspect that all the useful things that need to be said have already been said. However, some of Mr Ford’s remarks require comment.
It is ironic that the Alliance Party has made a nomination, bearing in mind some of the comments of my Colleague Ian Paisley Jnr. It must be remembered that when Mr Neeson — who, by definition, is a decent individual — submitted himself to the electorate, he was able to achieve only around 2% of the popular vote. I am sure that he has reflected on that, and I am surprised that he has let his name go forward in the light of his performance in the European election.
For 20 years or more, my party has consistently topped the poll in European elections. Would it not be right and proper for that to be reflected in the Assembly’s nomination?
Mr Ford said that it would be verging on a tragedy if two Unionists, namely, the one —

Mr David Ford: It was not I.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Mr Ford inferred it. He said that Mr Jim Dillon from Lisburn City Council was one of the nominees, and that there would be another nominee from that council. Mr Poots would not be nominated as a member of Lisburn City Council; he would be going forward as the nominee of the Assembly. Mr Ford found it — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Does the Member not think that it would be more appropriate if the nominee were pro-European rather than anti-European? Or, perhaps I am wrong in that it is not from an anti-European stance that the DUP is making its nomination.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I hear what the Member says. However, she is an intelligent lady and she has been watching the results. She knows who has topped the poll consistently. The leader of my party has taken a stance on Europe, and we should not try to walk past what the people say. Ms Morrice may want to do that in the Women’s Coalition, and that may be why it secured such a mammoth vote. However, what Ms Morrice is trying to say goes past me; I do not accept her point. It would be a total irony if Mr Poots were not the nominee of the Assembly.
Mr Neeson is a member of a party that is decreasing by the day, and, as Mr McCartney said, under his leadership it decreased even more — and that was because of him. It is imperative that Mr Poots be the nominee. After all, Mr Ford became a Unionist when it was politically expedient to do so, and I am sure that Mr Neeson will be pro- or anti-Europe whenever it is politically expedient to be so.

Mr Jim Wilson: I call Mr Kieran McCarthy to make his winding-up speech.

Mr David Ford: Wrong name, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Jim Wilson: I call Mr David Ford.

Mr David Ford: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It does not take too long to respond to the positive comments in this debate, and I thank Danny O’Connor for making nearly all of them. It is bizarre that all the examples cited by DUP Members about Europe dealt with the European Parliament, which was precisely the point that I made earlier. This motion relates to the Council of Europe and not to the European Union.
When the DUP had a party member on the Committee of the Regions in the European Union, he managed to attend about one meeting in four. We could all indulge in petty sniping.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Member give way?

Mr David Ford: No. I sat and listened to the Member’s rubbish earlier — [Interruption].

Mr Gregory Campbell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When a matter of factual inaccuracy is stated, even in a winding-up speech, the Member should, in all conscience, give way so that the accurate position can be given on the Floor of the Assembly.

Mr Jim Wilson: It is entirely up to the Member whether he will give way.

Mr David Ford: I will bow to the former Minister’s advice.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: The Member should be aware that the DUP’s nominee at that time was an alternate member who was never entitled to go to any of those meetings. When the person from the Benches over there who was supposed to attend meetings did not go, he did not inform the DUP’s nominee of his right to go, so he was not entitled to do so. That should never be allowed to happen again.

Mr David Ford: I accept that I failed to use the word "alternates", and I apologise for that. It was certainly my understanding at that time that, rather than Mr Paisley’s pointing the finger in this direction, the DUP member was an alternate to an Ulster Unionist, and the Alliance member was an alternate to an SDLP member. Mr Neeson, as the Alliance alternate, attended at least as many meetings as either of the full members. I cannot understand why other members did not speak to their alternates on those occasions.
The debate started off with some moderately sensible comments but degenerated into petty sniping from the Benches on my left. I applaud Seán Neeson’s courage in stating the case for Europe, and, when he has had the opportunity, in playing a practical part at European level, principally in European Union institutions. He has shown that he can stand up for what is right for Northern Ireland, and he deserves the confidence of the Assembly to represent us.
Question put,
The Assembly divided:
Ayes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, William Hay, David Hilditch, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Robert McCartney, William McCrea, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Sammy Wilson.
Noes
Alex Attwood, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Bairbre de Brún, Sean Farren, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.
Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes
Alex Attwood, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, Annie Courtney, John Dallat, Duncan Shipley Dalton, Bairbre de Brún, Sean Farren, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Carmel Hanna, Denis Haughey, Joe Hendron, John Kelly, Kieran McCarthy, Donovan McClelland, Alasdair McDonnell, Gerry McHugh, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Francie Molloy, Jane Morrice, Conor Murphy, Mick Murphy, Sean Neeson, Danny O’Connor, Sue Ramsey, Brid Rodgers.
Noes
Fraser Agnew, Paul Berry, Gregory Campbell, Wilson Clyde, Nigel Dodds, Boyd Douglas, William Hay, David Hilditch, Derek Hussey, Billy Hutchinson, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Edwin Poots, Iris Robinson, Mark Robinson, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Sammy Wilson.
Main Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly appoints Seán Neeson MLA as its nominee to the Regional Chamber of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe.
The sitting was suspended at 12.30 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Credit Card Abuse

Mr John Dallat: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the recent abuse of credit cards used in the payment of expenses by personnel in Government agencies, as contained in the reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and calls for a comprehensive review of how Government Departments and their agencies settle their accounts.
I tabled this motion because, as Chairperson of the Audit Committee and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I am concerned that the practice of issuing credit cards in the public sector is becoming a threat to the normal financial controls that must operate when taxpayers’ money is being spent. The threat to financial controls leading to misuse and abuse of credit cards is at two levels. First, there is evidence, which I shall deal with later, that credit cards are being used to subvert accountability to the Assembly for the spending of public money. That is happening because credit cards can be used to circumvent the provision of financial details in invoices and receipts, which are normally used to verify the integrity of transactions.
Secondly, it is also clear that the credit cards are particularly open to abuse in the area of travel and hospitality expenses, which are notoriously difficult to control, even in the best of systems. When there is extensive use of credit cards, there is a correspondingly significant increase in the risk of impropriety. It is important for the Assembly to highlight that problem at as early a stage as possible and to challenge Departments to provide us with assurances that they will tackle it vigorously before more harm is done to the public’s perception of financial integrity in the public sector.
To gain some idea of the usage of such cards, I have submitted written questions to all Departments and the Assembly to seek details of the number of cards issued and the expenditure incurred on them during 2001-02. Some very interesting statistics emerged from my enquiries, many of which raised more questions than answers. For example, throughout the public sector, 201 credit cards have been issued, with expenditure of more than £1·5 million having been incurred on them. In other words, approximately £7,500 was spent on each card. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has incurred the most on its cards — almost one third of the total credit card expenditure. In contrast, some of the larger Departments have no expenditure and have not even issued any credit cards.
One surprising finding of the exercise was that the Assembly had issued more cards than any other body. In 2001-02, it had 45 cards in use, which was more than all the main Departments put together. It has also spent vastly more on credit cards than any other Department, excluding the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development — some £230,000. I highlight that because, as everyone in the House will agree, we must be absolutely sure that, when we exercise our scrutiny role over the Civil Service Departments, our own practices and procedures must be beyond reproach and fully transparent. I recognise that, if properly controlled, there are benefits from the use of credit cards. That is worth repeating. Credit cards can have benefits, if they are properly controlled.
The Government Purchasing Agency operates a card system for Departments that is intended to reduce the cost of purchasing transactions. That is eminently sensible, as the scheme is firmly underpinned with careful guidance on how and when the cards can be used, and I fully support that. It is not my intention to try to turn the clock back and stop the use of credit cards; my concern is that they must be properly controlled. Credit cards are open to abuse, therefore the operation of those controls must be subject to careful safeguards and checks. At present, the problem does not receive sufficient priority from some Departments.
Let us review the evidence to date. The first time the abuse of credit cards came to my attention was during the Public Accounts Committee’s review of the Fire Authority. During the evidence session, the Committee heard that a Fire Authority official had used the departmental credit card to cover travel costs incurred by a member of his family — he used the card for personal purposes. To compound the error, the official subsequently forgot to pay the amount due, until it was drawn to his attention. That incident drew my attention to the potential pitfalls of using credit cards.
The next time that I came across misuse of credit cards was during the Public Accounts Committee’s review of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Once more, there was evidence that an official in New York was using a card for personal purposes. However, I shall not bore Members with the details, as the Committee will report on the matter later in the session.
The latest case of credit card misuse is in the "Into the West" project. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is carrying out a review of the matter and will produce a report soon. However, such are the alleged abuses in the scheme that they have already reached the newspaper columns. I shall not comment any further on those cases because the allegations have yet to be formally reported. The Public Accounts Committee will undoubtedly consider any such report.
However, common themes emerge from each of the cases to which I have referred: the use of credit cards for personal purchases; poor controls in the monitoring of credit card expenditure; and poor backing papers in support of payments.
One of the strengths of the Northern Ireland system is that the average man in the street has confidence in the integrity of public administration — I cannot emphasise that enough. That confidence must not be taken for granted. It is a fragile plant that could wither in the face of repeated failures of financial control and impropriety. Therefore I call on the Minister of Finance and Personnel to give the problem the highest priority before it does more extensive damage to the credibility of our beloved institutions. I would not be surprised to be told by the Minister that a great deal of work is already under way.

Ms Jane Morrice: I call the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, Mr Conor Murphy.

Mr Conor Murphy: I welcome today’s debate. It is interesting that we are back to debating financial probity and accountability as, earlier today, the Audit and Accountability Bill was given its Second Stage. It appears that Members are back on track with such matters, as measures to ensure that financial probity, accountability and transparency were described as technical distractions yesterday, when we wanted money thrown at projects without any such safeguards.
I support Mr Dallat’s motion, and I echo his sentiments that credit cards when used in the right circumstances can be beneficial. The Public Accounts Committee has already raised the issue, and its concerns are well documented.
During the Public Accounts Committee’s evidence session with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board on 30 May, the Chairperson stated:
"Public bodies issue credit cards without proper control or guidance, and the cards have become a mechanism for bypassing the normal careful treatment of hospitality and expenses. They are given to staff who, for the most part, are not trained to use them; some officials, when they get their hands on a piece of plastic for which they are not personally paying the bills, seem to lose all sense of value for money and, in some cases, all sense of propriety."
Although I was not a member of the Committee at that time, I share those concerns. However, the problem is not unique to us. The trend towards increased use of credit cards is happening everywhere. There have been cases in Britain, which have been dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee at Westminster, in which credit card misuse has featured.
What is interesting about those cases, and cases that have been dealt with locally, is that credit card misuse is almost always associated with other major problems of impropriety — lack of financial control or poor standards of administration. It is generally a symptom of more serious administrative malaise, which is why it is always important that it be fully investigated and vigorously tackled.
The Public Accounts Committee has asked the Comptroller and Auditor General to be especially vigilant in examining credit card expenditure in his audits of all public bodies in the North. I am glad to report that he has undertaken to do that, which is reassuring. However, it is not enough, as audit — by its very nature — is retrospective. That is why the real burden of dealing with the issue falls on those who have responsibility for financial control in the day-to-day operations of Departments and their subsidiary bodies. That applies especially to the Department of Finance and Personnel, which, I am sure, shares the Public Accounts Committee’s concerns.
In the course of its work, the Public Accounts Committee requested the Department of Finance and Personnel to issue further guidance on the control of credit cards. I would like to hear an announcement from the Minister that adequately addresses the Committee’s concerns.

Ms Jane Morrice: I apologise to the Member for calling him as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Finance and Personnel, when it is the Public Accounts Committee of which he has recently become Deputy Chairperson.

Mr Seamus Close: Like Mr Murphy, I commend Mr Dallat for tabling the motion. It comes at a particularly opportune time, as reports are being prepared that highlight what can only be referred to as "dubious practices". As elected representatives, Members have a duty to taxpayers. At Budget time, Members vote to allocate taxpayers’ money to various Departments, to be spent on legitimate purposes agreed by the Assembly. It is, therefore, incumbent on Members to ensure that taxpayers’ money is properly accounted for in all cases.
Earlier today, the Assembly agreed the Second Stage of the Audit and Accountability Bill, which will help to open up more accounts to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor General, enable him to better follow taxpayers’ money, and demonstrate transparency and accountability. This debate highlights the potential abuse of credit cards. Today, therefore, the Assembly is sending out a strong message that abuse of taxpayers’ money will not be tolerated. Indeed, zero tolerance will be the benchmark.
Credit cards are, undoubtedly, a convenient and less painful way of spending money — even one’s own money. However, a piece of plastic can make some people feel like millionaires. They can be tempted to dispense largesse as if there is no tomorrow, with the foolish belief that the end of the month is merely a mirage.
As guardians of the public purse, the Assembly must make certain that meaningful controls are in place to ensure, as far as possible, that abuse or careless expenditure cannot take place. It is equally important, should careless or inappropriate expenditure take place, to take strong action against any transgression. Those who have credit cards issued to them by Departments, or by the Assembly, need to remember that it is not their money. They should therefore think at least twice before using such a card. They must be in no doubt that they will be held accountable for its use and, certainly, for any abuse.
Regrettably, my experience on the Public Accounts Committee has shown me that, at times, a distinct lack of control seems to exist in the minds not only of those who have use of a card, but, more alarmingly, in the minds of those who have a financial control function. At times, they appear to have been remiss in exercising control and authority. A crazy situation arose in the Public Accounts Committee where attempts were made to convince the Committee that expenditure on a certain credit card was totally justified even though thousands of pounds worth of receipts were missing.
A credit card can fuel a bad attitude towards taxpayers’ money, and we need to change that. We must put the brakes on and rein in the big spenders by ensuring that proper controls are in place. A duty of care exists not only on those who have a credit card, but on those who issue them. They too are accountable, and they must realise that.
Credit cards can be and, at times, are a temptation. Those entrusted with them should learn the lesson from the Lord’s Prayer:
"Lead us not into temptation".
They should be assured that they will never be delivered from having to account for their expenditure.
I regret that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is not in the Chamber. Yesterday, I asked a pretty innocuous question about credit card use for hospitality in New York. I want to make it abundantly clear to all Members that the reason so many questions have been asked of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) is, unequivocally, the reluctance of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to answer fully questions posed by the Public Accounts Committee.
There is a lesson therein. When an accounting officer appears before the Public Accounts Committee, he has a duty to answer questions clearly and unequivocally, and to get directly to the point. There must be no attempt to avoid the issue, because that leads to many questions. That is why many questions have been asked about credit cards, and of the NITB in particular.
Mr McClarty raised the cost of such questions. The cost of those questions pales into total and absolute insignificance when compared to the damage the public’s confidence suffers when they realise that Departments have failed to exercise control over how taxpayers’ money is spent.
Let us examine some of the Public Accounts Committee’s reports. The ‘Report on Internal Fraud in the Local Enterprise Development Unit’ uncovered £200,000 of fraud. The ‘Report on the Brucellosis Outbreak’ at the Agricultural Research Institute found that more than £1 million had been wasted. A report on the community regeneration schemes has found some £8 million of loans. In the ‘Report on The Rural Development Programme’, the sum of money was some £50 million. The common thread that runs through those situations was a lack of control. The motion is about trying to impress "control" as the watchword and about emphasising that there is no moving away from the need to follow clear guidance and controls.
I welcome the Minister’s comment yesterday that credit cards
"are a perfectly legitimate means of dealing with public expenditure provided the procedures are in place to ensure accountability." [Official Report, Bound Volume 18, p283]
The core issue, as the Minister said, is to ensure that the people who use credit cards are accountable.
Given that the Tourist Board did not even know that its New York manager was using the card and that the Minister’s Department did not know whether instructions to stop using it had been issued or whether there had merely been discussion on the matter, I fail to understand how Sir Reg Empey can be satisfied that proper procedures were in place and that the manager was accountable. Control, control, control will lead to accountability. As elected representatives, we should settle for nothing less. I know and trust that the Minister will treat the issue with the importance that it deserves, and will introduce the necessary controls on the use of credit cards and the spending of public money.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am pleased to contribute to the debate and will not speak for too long. It was unfortunate that Mr Close seemed to pre-empt the Public Accounts Committee’s report. That report will eventually make its way to the House where it will be given due and serious consideration.

Mr Seamus Close: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Public Accounts Committee has already dealt with the issues to which I referred. The reports are in the public domain, and if the Member doubts that, I shall gladly provide him with copies.

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: At least Mr Dallat showed some caution when discussing the matter in the absence of the appropriate Minister. It might have been more reasonable for Mr Close to have waited until the Minister at whose Department his criticisms were aimed had the opportunity to respond in the Chamber. However, I understand that Dr Farren is the Minister who takes the lead on those issues, and he is in the Chamber today. I look forward to his response.
On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party, I stress that the abuse of credit cards is inexcusable and indefensible. It cannot be justified in any circumstance, and any impropriety must be investigated and dealt with appropriately. We should allow the systems and procedures that have been put in place by the House, and by Ministers who are accountable to the House, to be followed before we establish ourselves as judge, jury and, perhaps, executioner. To ensure accountability, staff who are responsible for carrying a credit card should be given appropriate training and should take care to provide receipts for transactions whenever possible. I hope that the Minister will include such measures in any proposed new scheme or approach.
When commenting on this, people have a tendency to make allegations without producing evidence to back them up. There has been much public comment on the matter, and it cheapens the debate when Members resort to making such allegations in public. Members should not use the issue to promote themselves or to start a political vendetta. Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that some Members are intent on doing just that. I hope that such behaviour will be avoided in future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Mr Conor Murphy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Kennedy referred to political vendettas and possible motives. Has he ever declared an interest when Northern Ireland Tourist Board issues have been discussed and allegations made in the Assembly? He has frequently attacked some Members and defended others who have questioned those matters; however, I have yet to hear him declare an interest, in that he was a member of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member knows, as a former Chairperson of the Committee on Procedures, that Members’ interests are declared in advance in the Register of Members’ Interests. I am assuming that Mr Kennedy has done that.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is important that I establish the fact that, as far as I know, I have registered that interest with the appropriate body.

Mr Mervyn Carrick: In my circumstances, I can honestly claim not to be publicly or politically profiling myself for any forthcoming elections. Anything I say, therefore, is in the interests of the voter, the general public and — as Mr Close indicated — accountability. That is how it should be when it comes to the use or misuse of public funds.
In some ways, it should not have been necessary to table the motion. The vast majority of Government officials and agency staff observe the highest standards of financial propriety and are fully compliant with the guidelines for the use of credit cards. However, the issue has come to the attention of the Public Accounts Committee, and I want to emphasise to Mr Kennedy that there is ample evidence of credit card misuse in the public sector. It is clear from the Comptroller and Auditor General’s reports that the public sector’s use of credit cards is a growing problem.
Other Members referred to specific cases that have come to the Public Accounts Committee’s attention. Those cases reveal two weaknesses about the way in which some public bodies have handled the growing number of credit cards in use. First, cards appear to be issued without proper guidance for staff on their use. That is surprising. In those circumstances, it is little wonder that some staff have abused cards and attempted to circumvent the public sector’s normally strong controls for ensuring that payments and refunds of expenses are incurred properly and accounted for fully. That is strange. The evidence suggests, however, that in some cases there was a lack of knowledge about policy. It might be thought unnecessary to spell out to public servants that office credit cards should not be used for cash withdrawals or for personal expenses. However, as Mr Dallat said, experience shows that that does happen.
Moreover, credit cards are often issued to senior management, and it is especially regrettable that people in management positions were responsible for several of the recent lapses — not the tea maker or the canteen lady. They have no excuse for their actions. Their personal standards should have told them that they should not misuse or abuse public funds. Senior management should set an example in how to account for expenditure.
I am concerned about a second issue. Departments must realise that it is not good enough merely to issue guidance on the use of cards. It seems that, although comprehensive guidance was issued, procedures were not in place to ensure that staff were familiar with it and that they followed it. To monitor guidance and policy is insufficient. Action would have ensured that problems were identified earlier. Indeed, it might have prevented problems from escalating to a point at which they were so worrying as to threaten to discredit the use of credit cards altogether.
I do not want it to become necessary to ban or severely restrict the use of credit cards in the public sector. There is a good case for using credit cards for some transactions, so long as the normal trail of accountability for public money is not undermined. That must be emphasised.
Sustaining accountability is a challenge for Departments, and, by drawing attention to the problem today, it is to be hoped that Members will ensure that the Minister acts promptly to put the use of credit cards in the public sector on a sound footing and so prevent the escalation of the worrying problems that we have seen in the past two years.
It should not have been necessary to have this debate. However, the Public Accounts Committee has accumulated sufficient evidence on credit card abuse to support its call for a comprehensive review of how Departments and their agencies settle their accounts.

Dr Sean Farren: On behalf of the Executive, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the motion. I listened carefully to the Members who spoke. In the past few months, I have noted the concerns of the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) and the Public Accounts Committee about the use of credit cards by public bodies.
I emphasise that propriety and proper standards in public life are vital for those who are involved in the work of Government. The Audit and Accountability Bill, which Members discussed this morning, demonstrates clearly the Executive’s intent to strengthen mechanisms for effective and stringent forms of accountability. The general welcome that the Bill received confirms that that intent is widely shared in the House.
The integrity of the processes of the institutions in Northern Ireland must be supported by the proper control by officials of the handling of public money, and that applies equally to the use of credit cards.
Several Members acknowledged that there are certain significant benefits in using credit cards for some types of transaction. Their use can be more cost-effective and efficient than other methods of payment, and it is important to remind Members of that. Therefore, in principle, I have no objection to their use, and I am not necessarily concerned about the number in circulation. However, the controls that are associated with their use are key, whatever their number.
There are potential problems with credit cards if they are used inappropriately or if there are inadequate internal controls. I agree with Mr Dallat’s comments about the need to properly control the use of the credit cards. It is important to have rigorous safeguards, because the nature of credit cards means that those controls must be watertight. The Department of Finance and Personnel has issued guidance that makes that abundantly clear.
Mr Dallat referred to the procurement card scheme that my Department’s Procurement Service operates; I encourage its use. The Government procurement card provides all the benefits and facilities of the more traditional corporate credit card, but, importantly, it can provide more security and more controls. Those include enhanced indemnities and restrictions on the monthly accounts and categories of spend. It is for those reasons that the use of the Government procurement card is recommended for all public bodies.
Mr Dallat mentioned the case of credit card misuse in the Fire Authority for Northern Ireland. In that case, the Chief Fire Officer incurred personal expenses. That was wrong, which he has acknowledged. Subsequent to the publication of the Public Accounts Committee’s report, my Department wrote to all Departments and advised them that personal expenses must not be charged to credit cards.
More recently, concerns about the use of a credit card by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board’s New York office manager were highlighted in a Public Accounts Committee evidence session. The report on that case will be published shortly, and I await it with interest. I trust that it will be a further spur to addressing issues that are in the public domain, and my Department will follow up on relevant matters.
During the Tourist Board evidence session, my Department gave a commitment that it would revisit the guidance on the use of credit cards to ascertain whether it could be further strengthened and developed. My Department has now prepared revised guidelines on the use of credit cards, and those will be issued shortly to all Departments and public bodies.
Training courses already exist in matters regarding financial recording and control, and those will also be reviewed to ensure that they meet the needs of proper accountability for, and the recording of, all public expenditure.
I assure Mr Dallat and other Members that the Executive are committed to high standards in the handling of public money in Northern Ireland. Important lessons have been drawn from the cases to which I referred, and those are being taken on board in Departments by accounting officers. My Department is supporting the Public Accounts Committee in its work on the matter. Problems have been identified, action has been taken, and there will be other follow-up measures.
Let me make it clear that I welcome the work and the reports of the Public Accounts Committee in that area, and I commend the Committee for drawing our attention to several important issues.

Mr John Dallat: I thank everyone who participated in the debate, and I especially thank the Minister for his positive response. The misuse of credit cards to date, together with the potential for further abuse, must be dealt with head-on — we have received that assurance. The incidences of credit card abuse that were described have been extremely embarrassing to the Departments involved and have greatly undermined public confidence in the Administration.
Key questions were raised today, which the Minister addressed. Are the cards required? A question that has been emphasised repeatedly is: are adequate controls in place? More importantly, have the controls been implemented? Are the cards being used only when appropriate? Where cards have been misused, have lessons been learnt? Have controls been introduced to prevent further abuse? The Minister has taken appropriate action to ensure that.
The only downside to the debate was Mr Kennedy’s negative attitude — I am extremely disappointed that he has not stayed for the summing-up — and his use of words and phrases like "vendetta" and "judge, jury and, perhaps, executioner", although the language is more moderate than that used yesterday. I am sure that I speak for every member of the Public Accounts Committee and for every Member of the Assembly when I say — and if Billy Bell were present today, I am sure he, too, would agree — that we do not want these issues to become a political or sectarian football. Accountability to the taxpayer is too great an issue to become embroiled in petty point-scoring and name-calling. I thought that the Assembly was mature enough to deal with such matters in a reasonable and pragmatic manner. Unfortunately, some Members still have to climb out of entrenched positions. They fail to recognise that the Assembly has a prime responsibility to safeguard the taxpayers’ money.
It may surprise Mr Kennedy to know that I listened carefully to Sir Reg Empey’s response to questions yesterday on the credit card issued to the Tourist Board’s New York manager, and, believe it or not, I agree with most of what he said. I welcome particularly the Minister’s comment on credit cards that
"the core issue is to ensure that the people who use them are accountable and answerable." — [Official Report, Bound Volume 18, p283]
Words must be matched by deeds, and the evidence suggests that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment was perhaps the most guilty in its failure to properly control credit card expenditure.
I do not, however, want to end on a negative note. I thank again those Members who made a valuable and positive contribution to the debate, and I welcome the Minister’s response, which clearly demonstrated that the Assembly is mature enough to ensure that every single penny of public money is accounted for and well spent.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the recent abuse of credit cards used in the payment of expenses by personnel in Government agencies, as contained in the reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General, and calls for a comprehensive review of how Government Departments and their agencies settle their accounts.

Victims’ Memorial Garden

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That this Assembly recognises the heartache and suffering of the families of victims who perished as a result of the September 11 terrorist attack in the United States and welcomes Her Majesty’s Government’s funding for a memorial garden in remembrance of those victims. Accordingly, this Assembly calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to extend the same respect to the victims who died as a result of terrorism in this part of the United Kingdom by financing the creation of a similar memorial garden in Great Britain.
Much comment has been made about victims over the years, and, of course, that has caused a great deal of heated discussion. The tabling of this motion comes on the back of recent press coverage of Rita Restorick’s request for Government funding for a memorial. Mrs Restorick is outraged by the refusal of Her Majesty’s Government to provide financial support for a memorial garden in Great Britain to commemorate soldiers who died as a result of terrorist acts during the Northern Ireland troubles.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)
Mrs Restorick asked the Government to pay for plaques for the trees in the Ulster Ash Grove at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire, at a cost of £72,000. At the moment, a plastic label engraved with the name of a victim is tied around each tree. There are 719 trees, each one representing a British soldier murdered in Northern Ireland. However, the Government said that they had a policy of not providing state funds for such memorials because "it would not be fair to be seen to support one group rather than another."
One can appreciate the difficulty that the Government face when dealing with the many requests for assistance. However, there is a clear lack of consistency in their actions, and they seem to have disregarded their policy.
On 13 August 2002, Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, announced plans for a memorial garden to commemorate the victims of the 11 September attacks in the United States. The Government are contributing £1 million to the memorial at Grosvenor Square Garden in London. It is important to say that the victims of those terrorist attacks have a right to remember their loved ones that should not be denied. However, we should also be sensitive to the hearts of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Essentially, the motion calls for equality of treatment: we wish to see parity of esteem. The families of the victims of 11 September should be able to remember their loved ones through a Government-financed memorial, and so too should the families of the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Security personnel and civilians who died as a result of terrorism should be recognised.
What have our Government done to remember the two people killed in the London docklands bomb in February 1996? In April 1993, an IRA bomb in Bishopsgate in London killed one person and injured 44. Just one year before that, three people were killed by an IRA bomb outside the Baltic Exchange in London. As far as I am aware, the Government have not directly funded any memorial for military personnel or civilians killed during the troubles.
There may be some confusion about whether we are calling for a separate memorial garden for civilians killed as a result of terrorism. The primary reason for the motion is to call on the Government to consistently adhere to their policy. For example, they should fund the plaques that Rita Restorick has been calling for. However, there is an argument that a memorial garden should be set up for civilian victims, funded by the Government.
While I was drafting this speech, I was amazed to find that the Government had consulted the families of victims of 11 September. What consultation have the Government undertaken recently with the families of the victims that I mentioned? The Government should not add to the pain and suffering of those families; they should be proud of those who, despite what some may suggest, lost their lives protecting everyone in Northern Ireland, regardless of which community they belonged to. I have a duty to those who were murdered because they paid the price for protecting me and you in this Province. Ironically, those soldiers protected the lives of people who will undoubtedly be opposed to the motion for political reasons. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible debate, and that we will not be dragged into the sectarian gutter.
It is vital to point out that, for the 719 British soldiers murdered, few murderers have been convicted. Families find it hard to deal with that pain, and our Government’s hypocrisy and double standards are only another kick in the teeth. While Her Majesty’s Government marked time, and, in doing so, offended many good and broken-hearted citizens, an event took place that was most offensive to those who had lost loved ones in the terrorist campaign. A gala dinner, held in Dublin some months ago, was organised by the IRA and graced — wait for it — by Sinn Féin’s Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. Relatives were presented with a gold Easter lily for each of their dead.
That shows that an illegal army grouping is admired and recognised. Those terrorists who destroyed so many and so much over the past 30 years are seen as heroes because they destroyed so many people and broke so many hearts and homes. Meanwhile, all those innocents who suffer and sorrow over their loved ones wait in vain for some official recognition of the ash grove. That is due to an entrenched Ministry of Defence culture that says that when in the slightest doubt, it is best to do absolutely nothing. Nobody would ever say so publicly, but some officials, officers and politicians are bending over backwards not to offend the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland.
I think specifically of the many innocent victims who went out to do their daily chores and never returned to their loved ones. They had no intent to murder and maim. They did not go out in a premeditated fashion to murder anyone, whereas terrorists go out to destroy by whatever means.
I think deeply about the atrocities at La Mon House; Teebane; Greysteel; my home town of Enniskillen some 15 years ago; Kingsmills; Claudy, currently in the news due to the allegations coming to the fore; and Omagh, the worst atrocity in size. Those were terrible acts and inhumane deeds against a community. Are they ever pardonable? They are but a few of the brutal acts of aggression perpetrated against this community. Concentrate your mind on the blood, broken bodies and broken hearts in the aftermath. Those hearts and minds were torn asunder, never to be the same again. What a horrible thought. What an affliction upon so many innocents, yet recognition of those victims is begrudged.
All compassionate people will support the motion. Innocent victims are those who suffered at the hands of terrorists. Innocents do not go out in a premeditated fashion to murder and to destroy. It was not because of any commission or lack of commission on their part that they became victims.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I have received one amendment to the motion, which is published on the Marshalled List of amendments.

Mr Paul Berry: I beg to move the following amendment: In line 6, after "respect to the", insert: "innocent".
I commend our Colleagues for tabling the motion.
It is right and proper that we discuss this sensitive issue. The events of September 11 have drawn worldwide attention to terrorism as a gross and wicked evil that must be eradicated. When bin Laden and his cohorts blew up the twin towers on September 11, he also blew up the polite fiction of romantic terrorism, which was widespread in New York regarding the ferocious, murderous and bloodthirsty campaign of Sinn Féin/IRA. We had to suffer that murder campaign for 30 years, but, sadly, many turned a blind eye to those activities. It seems that the innocent who were made to suffer so much are at last getting some deserved recognition. However, even in this, we must tread carefully.
The amendment in the name of my Colleague Maurice Morrow and me seeks to make clear precisely who the victims are, and there is a need to do so. As one writer put it:
"this is in part because the mind-twisting of the terrorist feeds the moral confusion of the West’s" — the UK’s — "corrupted liberal orthodoxy. This sees a moral equivalence between terror and measures to protect against it. Believing there is no such thing as truth, it embraces lies instead and cannot distinguish victims from their victimisers."
There is a moral imperative to distinguish between those who perpetrate crime and those who are the innocent victims of that crime. Failure to do so leads to, and creates, injustice and moral confusion. The current vogue for making everyone a victim is a direct result of the denial of moral absolutes, which is the key feature of our post-modern age.
There is a difference between those who were murdered at Greysteel, Kingsmills, Narrow Water Castle, Claudy, Omagh and, regrettably, a host of other atrocities, and those who committed such crimes. Those murdered were people going about their normal activities, whether at the shops, at work, in their church or in a pub socialising. Those are the kinds of people who were hated by terrorists no matter what side of the community they came from. They were considered as legitimate targets and were thus killed or maimed. They deserve our tears, and they deserve to be remembered.
People who set out to kill, maim and destroy deserve no tears. Whatever political logic led them to such acts did not, and does not, justify the murder, death and destruction of our innocent people. Their names should be held in contempt, as they are by decent and honourable people. They committed atrocities and heinous crimes against innocent people, and their names should not be recorded on any memorial bearing victims’ names. Many people find it sickening that those who have been active in terrorism, or who have supported it, try to excuse themselves by claiming an affinity with, and to be included in, the concept of a victim.
There is no moral equivalence between a bomber and a victim. We hear the sentimental nonsense that we are all victims. That is nothing but an attempt to excuse the perpetrators and to shift the blame to the innocent victims — as if they were partly responsible for the crime. It is to say that victims were responsible for their own deaths or injuries at the hands of terrorists. That does a double disservice to the victim and is morally repugnant to all right-thinking people.
It is imperative that a distinction be made clearly today. If it is not, the Assembly will demonstrate that it lacks the moral principles to distinguish between right and wrong. Are we to say that there is a similarity between the terrorists and the workmen murdered at Teebane, or those murdered in the bookie’s shop on the Ormeau Road? I do not think so. So long as the command not to murder remains, the distinction between the victim and the perpetrator will also remain.
I have spoken to victims’ groups on many occasions. It always came across clearly that they did not want to be remembered alongside those who claimed to be victims but were really perpetrators of heinous crimes. It was also clear that terrorists, from whatever side of the community, had a choice. People in Greysteel, enjoying a pint with their neighbours and friends, did not have a choice about being murdered: it was placed on them, and crime and murder prevailed.
Terrorists do not understand exactly what has happened. They had the choice to go out and kill, or to not go out and kill. Sadly they went out and killed innocent people. Victims — from whatever side of the community — did not have a choice, whether they were worshipping God in Darkley Gospel Hall, or having a pint in Greysteel or anywhere else across the country. Gunmen came in and murdered them in front of everyone.
I support the amendment.

Dr Joe Hendron: On Friday 28 June I held my last surgery in primary care — I had been in practice for around 40 years. I could go on for hours, as could many Members, about the victims who were slaughtered and about the families who are still trying to pick up the pieces.
Like other Members, I attended the funerals and looked into the graves — some of the people had been my patients. I remember attending to a young soldier on the Falls Road as he breathed his last breath. Everything that I have been taught and every feeling that I have makes me deeply resentful of taking human life, no matter whose life it is. No person has a right to take anyone else’s life — whether inside or outside the womb — and I feel very strongly about that.
In all my years in primary care I had much experience of dealing with families who have had someone taken away. It was usually the father who was taken, although occasionally it was the mother. We had the case of Jean McConville, the mother of 10, who has been mentioned again recently.
I also deeply resent the fact that young families are reared without their fathers every day of the week and every week of the year. It is not surprising that some of those young children, partly because of what happened to their fathers, become involved in the wrong activities, even paramilitary activities. I could go on for hours about that.
I have talked about those who have died; but there are also the injured bodies. I have known several policemen who have suffered horrific injuries. One or two of them are in wheelchairs, and their suffering continues. Children who are now adults still carry scars. However, it is not only about the scars on people’s bodies, but about the scars on people’s hearts and on the two communities in Northern Ireland. I think it was Churchill who said that the alternative to peace was war. However, the reverse is also true: the alternative to war is peace.
The Assembly has no control over demands made of the Government in Britain. The idea of a memorial garden for all the victims of the troubles is a good one in principle, but it must be achieved through a broad political consensus. The location of such a garden, its nature and style, and whom it should commemorate are important considerations. That consensus should involve Nationalists, Republicans, Unionists and Loyalists; otherwise it becomes a points-scoring exercise. We have only to think of Loyalist and Republican memorials and the strife, division and hatred that they cause. Consensus has not been reached, because the community has not come to terms with its history. Therefore, the question is premature.
All victims of the troubles should be acknowledged, both individually and collectively. We have supported the Executive’s extensive proposals for assisting victims. We have advocated the establishment, from public funds, of a centre for reconciliation, which would contain a state-of-the-art audio-visual archive in a central public building. Such a centre would allow visitors to hear testimonies from victims or their families. That has happened in South Africa. Moreover we would see what was happening in the process of cross-community reconciliation, and we approve of an annual day of reconciliation.
I often wonder what we can do for those who have died. My party has made proposals in that regard. However, some people would say that the mightiest voice of all is the voice of God, and I accept that. As a Christian, I remember the words of the old song:
"If those lips could only speak
If those eyes could only see".
If only those who have been killed could speak to us. I have no monopoly on what they might say, but I feel in my heart that they would not want revenge or war. They would want peace for their families and a future for their children. It is important to remember the dead, but let us help those who have suffered. I know that many are trying to do that.
Above all, the biggest tribute that we could pay to the dead of Northern Ireland — whether soldiers, police officers or civilians — would be to make the structures of the Assembly work. The Assembly is the future for the people, especially the children, of Northern Ireland.

Mr Pat McNamee: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. Tá cúpla focal le rá agam. While the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement head for collapse, we have yet another selective motion on victims from the Ulster Unionist Party.
There are two parts to the motion. The first part deals with the events of 11 September. I have no difficulty in recognising the heartache, suffering, loss and grief of the families of all the victims of the attack on the twin towers. That part of the motion makes no distinction between any of the victims of that terrible event. It equally recognises Irish Americans, English Americans, other nationalities and ethnic groups; it makes no distinction between blacks, whites and people from other ethnic backgrounds; and it gives equal recognition to the manual workers who were carrying out maintenance work on the building and to the company executives who worked there — all of whom perished.

Dr Esmond Birnie: Does the Member accept that the point about the memorial in London is that it does draw a distinction? It draws a distinction between those who died in the twin towers as a result of terrorism and those who were sadly responsible for flying the aircraft into the towers — the terrorists. That is the crucial distinction. What the Member says, therefore, is not relevant.

Mr Pat McNamee: I do not accept that my remarks are not relevant. All the victims of the events of 11 September are equally recognised in the terms of this motion. There should be no distinction between the victims. All the victims and their families should receive equal recognition.
However, the second part of the motion calls for the finance to create a memorial garden
"to the victims who died as a result of terrorism in this part of the United Kingdom".
Who will define terrorism? Members know what the Ulster Unionist Party and others mean by the "victims" of terrorism. They focus first on the victims of IRA and Republican actions and then, selectively, on the victims of other paramilitary groups. In doing so, they exclude the victims of British state forces and the victims of British collusion in this part of Ireland and in the rest of Ireland. The motion refers to victims in this part of Ireland and, in doing so, excludes victims in the rest of Ireland and in Britain.
The motion excludes the families of the victims of the Monaghan and Dublin bombings. That exclusive approach to victims is part of a wider and deeper problem in Unionism. We are eight years into the peace process, yet Unionists seem not to be prepared to accept that conflict resolution means a recognition of all victims of the conflict equally. There can be no hierarchy of victims.
The section of the Good Friday Agreement titled "Reconciliation and Victims of Violence" states that
"it is essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation."
"Acknowledge" and "address" are the key words.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Please bear with me, Mr McNamee. Yesterday, during the debate on the Belfast Rape Crisis and Sexual Abuse Centre, which I thought was a crucial issue, I was disappointed that some Members were indulging in private conversations while Members spoke. This debate is also on a serious issue and, again, I am disappointed to find some Members carrying on private conversations.

Mr Pat McNamee: Mr Deputy Speaker, I assure you that I am not engaging in a private conversation. What I have to say is for the public to hear. The Good Friday Agreement states that it is essential to "acknowledge" and "address" the issues of all victims. Republicans have publicly acknowledged the suffering of all victims, but I do not hear anything from Unionists thus far that recognises or acknowledges all the victims of the conflict.
In my constituency of Newry and Armagh, Peter Cleary was abducted and shot dead. He was unarmed and had been searched, and he was shot dead by members of the British Army. Majella O’Hare was a schoolgirl when she was shot dead by members of the Parachute Regiment.
The motion seeks to exclude the families of those victims and to deny their loss and suffering. Many people are observing the current situation, the Ulster Unionist Party and the political institutions that arose from the Good Friday Agreement. There is a belief that Ulster Unionism is walking away from the agreement before it walks away from the institutions in January. Another paragraph in the Good Friday Agreement says that
"It is recognised that victims have a right to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society. The achievement of a peaceful and just society would be the true memorial to the victims of violence."
The DUP has tabled an amendment that seeks to exclude victims’ families further. It wishes to reduce the recognition of victims to "innocent" victims. Who will determine whether victims were innocent? Will the DUP decide? The DUP seeks to label some victims as innocent and, by implication, others as guilty. We have heard a great deal about the victims of Republican violence, and I acknowledge and accept the suffering that the actions of Republicans and the IRA have caused to the victims and their families. However, in recent months, Loyalist violence has been responsible for taking people’s lives, and for making women widows and children parentless. That violence represents the greatest threat to the peace process and the process of reconciliation.
I support a call for the British Government to finance a memorial garden to acknowledge all the victims of the conflict here over the past 30 years. Sinn Féin is willing to acknowledge the suffering of all victims, including those to whom Mr Foster and Mr Berry referred. However, it will not support a motion that seeks to remember some victims and exclude others.
Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Norman Boyd: It is right and proper that Her Majesty’s Government provide and fund a memorial garden to commemorate the victims of the 11 September attacks. They were victims of appalling acts of terrorism against democracy and freedom. On 13 August, Tessa Jowell, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at Westminster, referred to the memorial garden for the 11 September victims. She stated:
"Our intention is to provide a garden that will be simple, dignified and designed to the highest quality. It will also allow for privacy and seclusion for visitors. The families affected have, of course, been consulted and the design draws on their suggestions."
However, the same rights should apply to the innocent victims who died as a result of terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is essential that Her Majesty’s Government treat them equally. Regrettably, instead of the victims being treated with dignity and respect, Her Majesty’s Government are treating them in a disgraceful way for political expediency. It is a scandal that relatives of servicemen who were murdered in Northern Ireland must pay £100 each if they want a permanent memorial plaque erected in memory of their loved ones. A date has not even been arranged for the dedication of a memorial garden at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire. Some regiments have agreed to pay for plaques, but others have said that the cost is prohibitive, as they have lost so many men.
It is appalling that the victims’ families have been left to pay for memorial plaques for their loved ones who made the supreme sacrifice for their country against the evils of terrorism. A special dedication service for the innocent victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland was due to have taken place in September 2001 at the Ulster Ash Grove Memorial, but Her Majesty’s Government have yet to arrange it.
According to the ‘Daily Express’ of 29 April 2002, an Army source claimed that Ministry of Defence officials are worried about sending out the wrong signals by holding an official ceremony while the peace process is at a delicate stage. The Army source added that no one would ever say so publicly, but there are officials, officers and politicians who are bending over backwards not to offend the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. That is a scandal. It is essential that the innocent victims who were murdered as a result of terrorism here receive the same respect from Her Majesty’s Government as the victims of 11 September.
I support the amended motion. A distinction must be made between the innocent victims murdered by the evils of terrorism and the terrorists who perpetrated such atrocities. All decent, law-abiding people know the difference. However, the tablers of the motion displayed grave hypocrisy. They compounded the hurt of the victims of terrorists and their families by placing the political wing of the Provisional IRA in the Government of Northern Ireland.
The families of those murdered by terrorists are justifiably angry that their loved ones have died in vain. The tablers of the motion and their party must recognise that we have a duty as democrats to uphold the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It would therefore be a fitting tribute to the memory of the innocent victims and a fundamental requirement of democracy to exclude terrorists from the Government of Northern Ireland with immediate effect.

Mr Jim Shannon: I support the amendment proposed by my Colleague Paul Berry. It gives me an opportunity to highlight the issue on behalf of the innocent victims. There has been a shortfall in the Government’s attitude towards the victims of terrorist attacks in Northern Ireland. I wonder what the reasons are for not acknowledging people here; perhaps we are too far away. Many people think that the Government feel that they do not need to bother with us.
The catalogue of callous disregard for the innocent victims of terrorist activity in the Province is highlighted by the compensation procedure. Widows and parents of police officers were offered a few hundred pounds in compensation for the loss of their spouses or children. We recently heard how surviving victims who tried to obtain compensation have been treated for years. It should, therefore, come as no surprise that the Government have never offered to build a memorial garden for the innocent victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
There is no sign to future generations of the hurt and pain that this country has felt for the past 30 years, except the feelings in the hearts of those who have lost loved ones. There is no monument to the people who were butchered for someone else’s cause, some by people associated with this Chamber, according to the headlines in yesterday’s papers.
I, and many Members, have lost friends at the hands of people who stated that the deaths and carnage were acceptable war losses in their fight for patriotism. What is sickening is that I can see the faces and names of my friends and many others. I have an RUC poster on the wall of my office — Members may have similar pictures in their advice centres — that has the pictures and names of all the police officers who gave their lives in the service of Queen and country, the people and their families. Each picture tells a story of sacrifice.
Neither outsiders who visit this country nor future generations will be able to recall the names or faces of the victims. That situation must be rectified now. We must have a more significant memorial than the poster in my office.
There is no Christian way to deal with the pain other than to respect those who lost their lives in this country by establishing a lasting memorial of some kind. The bombs and bullets used against the people of this country shattered not only lives and families, they fractured communities. Every gramme of Semtex and every ounce of lead used against the people of the Province deepened the polarisation of the country.
The Labour Government have not aided the healing process; they have snubbed the hurt, the bereaved and the angry. Many people are angry about their treatment of victims. The Labour Government recognise Her Majesty’s subjects who died in America — as do we — or those who died in other war-torn parts of the world. However, they have never proposed such recognition of the people from all parts of the United Kingdom and Europe who were murdered right on their doorstep. There is no difference between the victims of al-Qaeda, ETA or the IRA. We must ask why the Government have never proposed a memorial to the victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland.
Words alone cannot explain to others the pain and hurt experienced when a loved one has been brutally snatched from a loving home. However, a place of reflection and sanctity that honours the victims gives families a focus for their healing, or their anger at what has taken place. It is a permanent reminder of those who have been killed, so that their sacrifice is not forgotten and the abhorrent actions of those who work for a mythical cause are not brushed under the carpet and overlooked in all the rhetoric of the peace process.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it not significant that, in the British House of Commons, there is no memorial to the Rev Robert Bradford, although there are such memorials to Airey Neave and others? When a motion was tabled by some Unionist Members acting across the board, it was rejected.

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank the hon Member for his contribution, which puts matters in clear perspective. There is selective recognition at Westminster. The murders of Airey Neave and Robert Bradford were equal in their horror and the impact that they had on their families, and they should have been recognised and remembered equally at Westminster as many of us remember them here.
In January 1970, during the Vietnam War, Major Michael Davis O’Donnell illustrated succinctly the thoughts of the ordinary citizens of this country when they are asked whether there should be a memorial to the victims of the troubles. His troubles were in a different place, and yet he opposed a faceless danger that was similar to that which the security forces and the innocent victims of this country have faced here over the years. The danger that he faced was similar to that faced by the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who died on our streets and thus became our heroes, and who remain in our past as a testimony to how much we have all suffered and how much we have lost. Major O’Donnell wrote:
"If you are able,
save for them a place
inside of you
and save one backward glance
when you are leaving
for the places they can no longer go.
Be not ashamed to
say you loved them,
though you may or may not have always.
Take what they have left
and what they have taught you with their dying
and keep it with your own.
And in that time
when men decide and feel safe
to call the war insane,
take one moment to embrace
those gentle heroes
you left behind."
The veterans of the Vietnam War had to fight hard for many years — and I draw the comparison with Northern Ireland — before their memorial was built, 20 years ago this year. I do not want the families or the innocent victims of terrorism in this country to have to fight for long years to get an appropriate and lasting memorial to their loved ones.
Memorial gardens in different towns have been subject to the horrors of the troubles, and some of those memorials, especially those of soldiers, have been vandalised. That has happened to a memorial to four UDR men from the Strangford constituency who were murdered by the IRA some years ago outside Downpatrick. The IRA — scum that they are — destroyed and desecrated that memorial, which the families had visited regularly and at which they had laid flowers. For a short time it was a memorial to their loved ones in that part of the country. The IRA destroyed that; they are the sort of people who have no respect for the memories of those who have given everything for this country.
We seek a place that is dedicated to those whom we have lost along the way — one place to which anyone can go to learn about the horror visited upon us for more than 30 years on the pretext of patriotism but which showed us how palpable evil really is. It is only right that the Labour Government afford the people of Northern Ireland the same respect that the victims of 11 September have been afforded in England, Wales, Scotland and elsewhere. After all, those victims have all been killed at the hands of terrorists, just as they have in this country. I support the amendment.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I am honoured to support the motion. It is an important issue for the thousands of victims of 30 years of terrorist murder and mayhem, which blighted the landscape of Northern Ireland and which left many without a father, mother, brother, sister or other relative. As a former member of the security forces, I have long recognised the work being carried out to protect everyone in Northern Ireland. Today, memories of past atrocities are still vivid in the minds of many people, despite the imperfect peace. Although people can move forward, they can never forget their loved ones who died as a result of cowards and terrorists; nor should they.
I have not had the opportunity to visit the Ulster Ash Grove at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire — established by private funds and largely the work of David Childs — but one day I would like to make the trip. However, I have been reading some comments about its appearance and the effect that it has had on some people who visited it. Rita Restorick commented that a figure or statistic on a piece of paper, which represents the number of military killed, does not hit the mind hard enough. She said that when one sees the small forest of trees, the loss and murder hits home much more.
Our Government’s policy on the matter of a permanent memorial to honour those who gave their lives is shameful. In Northern Ireland, more than 700 military personnel gave their lives on behalf of their country. However, our Government — the Government of their country — does not fund a memorial. That is hurtful and disingenuous to their memory.
Her Majesty’s Government recently announced their intention to create a permanent memorial to commemorate those who died as a result of the 11 September terrorist attacks. Although I do not object to that decision, the Government should look closer to home and seek to honour our own who lost their lives because of terrorists. We heard recently how the Ministry of Defence failed to fund permanent plaques on memorial trees in the National Memorial Arboretum.
In March, I was disgusted to hear that the families of IRA terrorists had been treated to a gala dinner in honour of members of the Provisional IRA. Imagine how the families of those brutally murdered by the same IRA men reacted when they heard those reports. They would have felt betrayed and disgusted.
In a recent newspaper article, SDLP Member Patricia Lewsley said that a traditional memorial would be too controversial. I refute that argument unreservedly. What is controversial about honouring those who died for the sake of their country in the war against terrorism? Certain officials have been quoted as saying that an official memorial would send out the wrong signals. It is time that our Government stood up for what is right and stopped courting paramilitaries.
In 1998 the Bloomfield Report, titled ‘We Will Remember Them’, recommended a memorial to victims in the form of a beautiful building with a peaceful garden. I reiterate that call and demand that our Westminster Government honour all those who have honoured us. They have let the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland down yet again. It is time to create a memorial garden.

Mr Gregory Campbell: It is always a privilege to follow the vivid and lucid arguments of Mr Armstrong. I thank the proposers of the motion and the amendment, and I add my support.
The critical words of the motion are "heartache and suffering"; there has been much of that over the past 34 years, and it continues. Another important word is contained in the amendment, and that is "innocent". That word is a crucial part of the motion. Earlier in the debate we heard an attempted defence — if there could be one — of the spurious argument to equate those who plant bombs with those who suffer because of them. That argument attempts to say that he who pulls the trigger is as much a victim as the person who receives the bullet, which is nonsensical. If we took that to its logical conclusion, we should ask the American Government to pay tribute to the suicide bombers in the planes, as well as to the innocent victims who suffered in the World Trade Centre. That is utter and total nonsense.
However, there is, of course, political reasoning behind that.
It is one by which they try to ensure that people will eventually be persuaded that this was a conflict of equals — that the farmer who farmed the fields was as guilty as the person who hid in the hedgerow to kill him. They try to say that the bus driver in Londonderry was as guilty as the mob from the Provisional IRA — not the Continuity IRA, or the Real IRA — who stepped on-board his bus and attempted to kill him a few days ago. Their guns were anything but silent on that occasion.
The crucial word is "innocent". The community demands that the Assembly distinguish between people who suffer as a result of violence and those who perpetrate violence. There cannot be any equivocation in the moral argument between perpetrator and victim. I, therefore, heartily endorse the motion. I hope that the House will endorse it and that Her Majesty’s Government will fund such a memorial garden.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The tenor of the motion and the amendment was never to be that all victims were on one side. I recognise that there were innocent victims on both sides of the religious divide in the community. Many people from the Roman Catholic tradition were murdered. I condemn those killings with the same ferocity as I condemn the killing of those who are perceived to come from my community.
During my time in public life — around 29 years in Dungannon District Council — I have never sought to take the easy path of only condemning the killing of members of my own community. I condemned all killings. I live in what was then deemed to be the "murder triangle", where many innocent people were killed simply because of who they were.
I never differentiated in my condemnation. When I condemned killings, I did not insert any "ifs", "ands" or "buts". I was clear and unequivocal in my condemnation of the killing of people whom I believed to be innocent and who were killed simply because of who they were.
I welcome the fact that the proposers of the motion have agreed to include the one-word amendment — "innocent" — because Members on this side of the House make a difference between innocent victims and those who perpetrate terror. I want to make it clear that there is a distinct difference. There must be a clear demarcation line between people who perpetrate such crimes and those who are on the receiving end of them.
I listened with interest to what Mr Armstrong said, although, I confess, I did not pick up everything. However, one point struck me. He said that the Government must stop pandering to terrorists. I agree. However, was it not his party that went arm in arm into the talks with those have been fully engaged in terrorism during the past 30 years to hammer out the Belfast Agreement? The Belfast Agreement brought about the Assembly. Therefore, those who were engaged in acts of terrorism have helped to keep Mr Armstrong’s party leader in Government. Had those two supporters, who would be aligned to a particular organisation, withdrawn their support, then Mr Armstrong’s party leader would not be in place today. I see that Mr Armstrong is telling me that he supports emphatically his party leader. Therefore, he is part of that pandering to terrorists.
In my estimation, 11 September 2001 was the defining moment for the free world. On that dreadful day, the world saw the awfulness of terrorism at first hand. Was it not ironic that terrorism should hit a country that has, to say the least, been ambivalent in its condemnation of terrorism in Northern Ireland? We have repeatedly seen television coverage of that awful event. Hardly a month goes past without its being reshown to remind us. As we watch the footage of those planes crashing into the high-rise buildings, the awfulness, rawness and dreadfulness of terrorism, whether in America or Northern Ireland, is brought home vividly.
We have had to endure 30 years of terrorism. I do not remember many presidents getting worked up about what was happening here. Indeed, I hold the previous President, Clinton, more accountable than any other world leader for giving encouragement, succour and support to terrorists in Northern Ireland. He helped to build them up, and they are now recognised as statesmen. They have been elevated to the same level as those of us who passionately believe in the ballot box — and the ballot box alone — to put people into power.
Some people sit in the Assembly and in the Government by virtue of the barrel of a gun. The rest of us do not have any private armies. Until those private armies are destroyed, we cannot hold out much hope for the future peace in this country.
I will be delighted when steps are taken to recognise the innocent victims. Not all victims are dead: many are still alive. The town of Claudy is back in the news headlines this morning. We have heard about a young nine-year-old lassie who was blown to pieces while cleaning the window of her father’s shop. If anyone was an innocent victim, it was that wee lassie. She epitomises what we are trying to say through the motion.
I urge everyone to support the amended motion, without any ifs, ands or buts. I say to those on the opposite Benches that we have no hidden agenda in bringing the amendment. We do not isolate victims and say that they all came from our side of the community, for that was not the case. There were victims on both sides of the community. All innocent victims should be recognised equally.
However, we draw a clear distinction between perpetrators and sufferers. It is imperative that the two are not mixed up, because to do so would be to be highly offensive. It would be an insult for the real victims if those who perpetrated crimes were remembered by the same memorial as those who are now in their graves because of those crimes.
I use but one illustration; I could use hundreds of others. For instance, how would the families of those killed in the fish shop on Shankill Road feel if the person who planted the bomb and the victims of that bomb were all classed as victims? It is not acceptable. We want to recognise the real victims, irrespective of which section of the community they came from, and I urge the Assembly to follow suit.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am slightly disappointed at the attendance in the Chamber for this debate. Although I accept that the matter is not the direct responsibility of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, the junior Ministers have some responsibility in that regard, and I am disappointed that they are not present.
I thank all the Members who contributed to the debate, particularly those who endorsed the motion and those who proposed the amendment. This issue is clearly important and deserves the attention, not only of Members, but of Her Majesty’s Government, within whose remit it falls. The motion refers to the tragic events of 11 September 2001 and Her Majesty’s Government’s entirely appropriate response to them, which involves providing a memorial to the British victims murdered in that atrocity. I was pleased that many Members agreed that such a memorial should be provided to commemorate that dreadful event.
The motion is also intended to encourage and persuade Her Majesty’s Government to recognise the great sacrifices made by the people of Northern Ireland and by all those who died as a result of terrorism, in whatever form, in the conflict here. As was mentioned in the debate, recommendations were included in a report by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, but action has yet to be taken on some of them. I thank my Colleague Sam Foster, who has already said that the amendment should be included in the motion. The amendment helps to convey the intended message to the Government.
Many victims’ groups are exploring ways to create lasting memorials to reflect the pain and great suffering that has been endured in the past generation, and many of those plans are advanced. Given the importance of this issue, it might be practical to build several memorial gardens in Northern Ireland so that relatives could access them easily. Memorial centres would complement any national or regional memorial dedicated to the innocent victims who were caught up in the conflict here. I trust that, as groups advance their local proposals, they will receive practical and financial support to construct those memorial gardens.
It is essential that soldiers from regiments based in the UK mainland and Commonwealth countries who died defending the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland be remembered in memorials created here. I represent a constituency in which many members of the security forces lost their lives, and I recognise that the memory of everyone who died should be cherished.
Some have questioned the purpose of memorial gardens. I see them as a place for quiet reflection, where relatives could express their grief, but also gain comfort, great support and encouragement as they seek to rebuild their lives. They would be seen as symbols of renewal and reconciliation and would generate hope and inspire people to look to the future. They could provide opportunities for training and employment, as well as allowing others to share the great deep emotions that the victims have unfortunately experienced.
In his opening remarks, Mr Foster referred to Mrs Rita Restorick’s campaign for a memorial in the Ulster Ash Grove. Bessbrook Mill is the main base for the security forces in south Armagh, and in its inner courtyard, memorial trees have been planted and named, and plaques have been erected to commemorate the past generation of soldiers who lost their lives. Unfortunately, given the nature of that installation, public access is restricted.
I thank Mr Berry, whose moral distinctions were correct. He outlined that there was a choice between right and wrong.
I thank Joe Hendron for his almost lone presence on behalf of the SDLP, and acknowledge his well-known opposition to all levels of violence, especially in the constituency that he represents here, and that he has represented in Westminster. I should like, at the very least, to acknowledge his presence and his contribution.
In respect of the comments of the Sinn Féin Member, Mr McNamee, if these institutions are heading for collapse, the fault clearly lies with the Republican movement. There is a very great difference between innocent victims and the victims of self-inflicted violence, which has been the pattern of Northern Ireland’s history in recent years. Furthermore, Mr McNamee referred to the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. I remind him that the text of the motion leaves that area outside this jurisdiction.
I thank Mr Boyd, and agree that it is scandalous that the Ministry of Defence does not move forward, even in respect of memorial payments in other parts of the United Kingdom.
I acknowledge the support of Jim Shannon, and I share his concern that the recognition of this issue is, in some places, highly selective, especially at Westminster.
My Colleagues Billy Armstrong and Sam Foster condemned the recent jamboree organised by the IRA, at which, apparently, medals were handed out. It remains to be seen whether that is the clearest sign so far that the war is over, but it seriously offended the law-abiding people from both of Northern Ireland’s main traditions.
I thank Mr Campbell and Mr Morrow for their clear support for the motion and for the amendment. Mr Morrow reminded the House that the Ulster Unionist Party had co-operated to some extent with what might be termed the Loyalist parties in the House, and he criticised the party for that. I remind him that when the Loyalist paramilitaries announced their ceasefire they expressed abject remorse to the victims of their violence. Rather unfortunately, Mr Morrow criticised my Colleague Billy Armstrong. Mr Armstrong wore the uniform of the security forces — something that cannot be said by every Member of the House — and helped — [Interruption].

Mr Maurice Morrow: Will the Member give way?

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am almost finished. He helped to play his part and was, in fact, involved in an incident that almost claimed his life and those of his colleagues. It is unfortunate — [Interruption].

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was an implied criticism of Mr Morrow. Mr Morrow was a member of Her Majesty’s security forces; therefore, I do not want to hear any snide remarks from Mr Kennedy. He ought to have given way like a man.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Thank you, Dr Paisley. Strictly, that was not a point of order.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I did not address my remarks to Mr Morrow alone. I simply said that not every Member could say that he or she wore the uniform of the security forces. I have no record of service in the security forces but I do, at least, recognise that Mr Armstrong made a contribution, as did other Members. Therefore, that was an unfortunate misunderstanding.
The support for the debate heartens me. It has been conducted in a mature fashion. I am sorry that attendance levels were not high. However, the issue is important, and it is to be hoped that the Government will take note; take speedy action to resolve the situation; and move in this spirit to create a lasting memorial to the innocent victims of the conflict.
Question, That the amendment be made,
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly recognises the heartache and suffering of the families of victims who perished as a result of the September 11th terrorist attack in the United States and welcomes Her Majesty’s Government’s funding for a memorial garden in remembrance of those victims. Accordingly, this Assembly calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to extend the same respect to the innocent victims who died as a result of terrorism in this part of the United Kingdom by financing the creation of a similar memorial garden in Great Britain.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During the debate on credit card abuse, Conor Murphy questioned whether I had registered an interest as a member of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board between 1996 and 1998. The relevant Clerk has advised me that there is no need for former members of the Tourist Board to be listed and that the register lists current or expected interests.

Mr Donovan McClelland: That was not a point of order, Mr Kennedy, but it was proper to give you the opportunity to put that on the record.
Adjourned at 3.53 pm.